정산금지급
1. The Defendant’s KRW 313,852,50, and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 1, 2017 to December 8, 2017.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that sells semiconductor equipment, provides technical services, and conducts research business. The Defendant is a company that engages in semiconductor equipment technical services, development and manufacturing business, etc.
B. 1) On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is a medium and semiconductor equipment of “Nikon NSR-204B” with the Chinese business entity (hereinafter “instant equipment”).
(i) the initial defective or used goods at LFurbling (hereinafter referred to as “instant service contract”) are maintained at the level of a new product. The contract was entered into with the content of the supply of a service and installation (hereinafter referred to as “instant service contract”).
The main contents of the above service contract are as follows. [The date of the instant service contract: the date of supply on March 18, 2015: the date of the contract: the quantity of the unit price of the object within 2.5 months from the date of the contract:
1. USD 650,000,000, for the equipment of this case, 1650,000,000
2. Malaysia 75,00 US$ 175,000.
3. Price terms: USD 725,00 on the total sum of transport and wood packaging (excluding value added tax): 2) The Plaintiff is the service price in the instant service contract between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant service price”).
(C) On August 18, 2015, the Plaintiff received an amount equivalent to 30% of the total contract amount from the Defendant as contract deposit, and agreed to receive an amount equivalent to 20% of the total contract amount at the time of installing the instant equipment at the workplace, and an amount equivalent to 20% of the total contract amount at the time of expiration of the warranty period for the instant equipment. (1) The Plaintiff transported the instant equipment to China on August 18, 2015, and thereafter the said equipment reached the workplace of a Chinese company.
2. The plaintiff maintained the equipment of this case.