2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the production and supply of presses for the production of components of the motor vehicle and the motor vehicle’s mother (hereinafter “instant gold-type production contract”) with the Defendant, and completed 69% manufacturing at the Defendant’s request for the Defendant’s preemptive work.

Nevertheless, the defendant unilaterally requested the suspension of the production of gold, and the plaintiff was not able to respond to it, and the service price has not been paid up to now. The defendant's delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case is to cancel the gold production contract of this case.

Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total production cost of 241,50,000 won (=350,000,000 x 69%) equivalent to 69% of the total production cost, which is the production cost according to the process ratio appraised by the plaintiff due to restitution to the original state.

B. Since the Defendant did not conclude the gold-type production contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the gold-type production contract of this case was concluded is without merit.

Even if the gold-type production contract of this case was concluded, the Plaintiff did not perform the duty of explanation required under the good faith principle, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable for damages arising from the tort. Accordingly, the Defendant’s liability for damages arising from the tort against the Plaintiff should be offset or deducted.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In order to establish the relevant legal principles, in order to ensure that there is a need and objective agreement between the parties to agree with each other, all the matters expressed in the parties’ declaration of intent should be the same. On the other hand, even if the contents of a contract are not “important” and objective elements of a contract, when the parties expressed, inter alia, their intent with a significant significance and expressed their intent as a requirement for the formation of a contract, the contract is legitimate and effective.