on May 15, 2015, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with a show showor machinery, etc., and entered into a supply contract by each agreement on June 20, 2015, with 18.5 million won (excluding value-added tax), including the installation, operation, and delivery date.

The defendant brought a lawsuit claiming 7,967,50 won, including the amount of value-added tax on 6.4 million won of the price of the above delivered goods, 1.21 million won of the value-added tax on 12.1 million won of the above delivered goods, and 357,500 won of the price of sand delivery, and damages for delay thereon.

(c).

This Court made a decision of performance recommendation regarding the above lawsuit filed by the defendant, and the decision is finalized on May 31, 2016.

The Plaintiff paid 12.1 million won to the Defendant, and the Defendant supplied 357,500 won to the Plaintiff. 2. The Plaintiff:

A. Of the agreed price of delivered goods, five million won is asserted to have been paid to Nonparty B with the consent of the defendant. Considering the whole purport of the argument in the statement No. 2 and No. 3, the defendant ordered the machinery supplied under the above supply contract to Nonparty C, and the plaintiff transferred five million won to Nonparty B at the above request of the defendant, in lieu of the payment of the above price of delivered goods.

The Plaintiff asserts that the cost of installation and trial operation is KRW 1.5 million among the agreed prices of supply, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1.477,00 won, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff agreed to install as the Plaintiff’s head and trial operation cost as KRW 1.5 million. However, according to the statement No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 70,000 to the expenses for the establishment,

2. Three instances are insufficient to deem that such expenses have been paid for installation, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and 400,000 won for trial run.