물품대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant B (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the principal lawsuit and Defendant M&A.
1. The reasons why this part of the basic facts in this court is stated are as follows: (a) the part of the facts of recognition is described in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (However, as Defendant C had changed its name to M, this changed name is followed). Therefore, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. On July 24, 2008, pursuant to the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) completed the supply of IMO equipment to Defendant B; and (b) obtained confirmation from Defendant B, a person in charge of Defendant B; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants the intermediate payment under the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2 and the delay damages therefrom.
B. Defendant B’s assertion and counterclaim claim that the Plaintiff agreed to deliver to Defendant B was equipped with 20,00 simultaneous call 20,000 in its performance, which is premised on the conclusion of the contract between Defendant D and the Plaintiff, and Defendant B, but the core requirement was in carrying out the instant project. However, the Plaintiff’s claim that the supply was made on July 24, 2008 is only possible with 8,500 simultaneous calls, and thus, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the instant contract No. 2.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff denied that the performance of IMO equipment to be supplied to Defendant B under the instant contract ought to be equipped with the performance of 20,000 simultaneous currency, and refused to supply IMO equipment with such performance. As such, Defendant B rescinded the instant contract around May 20, 2010 following the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of contractual obligation, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, and the Plaintiff also sought refund of the down payment amount of 340,650,000 won that Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff as a counterclaim, and the legal interest and delay damages therefrom.
C. Around December 2007, F, the representative director of Defendant B’s assertion of Defendant M, discussed the introduction of IMO equipment for the instant project with G, the Plaintiff’s project leader, G.