The defendant is USD 79,416 and its weight to the plaintiff.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation on this part is that, except where the Plaintiff “subcontracts the entire repair to the Plaintiff” in Section 2 of Section 3 of the first instance judgment as “subcontracts the entire repair to the Plaintiff,” the part of the second instance judgment is the same as the part of Sections 16 through 11 of the third instance judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff the repair cost of E’s Trawls Subcontract (hereinafter “instant repair cost”; USD 125,421; USD 780; USD 780; USD G part payment (supply on February 10, 2017); USD 1,550; USD 127,871 (supply on March 29, 2017); USD 125,421; USD 780; USD 1,550; USD 120,000; USD 127,871; USD 125,421; USD 550); and delay damages therefrom.

(hereinafter referred to as “price for each of the instant goods” by adding up F and G respective parts and core part payments. Defendant 1 did not obtain a signature from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Russia Co., Ltd.”) which is the owner of the work letter (Evidence 5) and filed a claim for repair amount that reaches 3.5 times the initial quotation (Evidence 1). Thus, the Defendant cannot be recognized.

② Even if there is a duty to pay household repair costs, a price negotiation (tentatively called 'NEGO') should take place in the case of vessel repair. ③ Moreover, the Plaintiff delayed the working schedule for 15 days, stated double claims and unfair claims in INVICE (Evidence A. 6). In addition, the Plaintiff’s employees were pointed out from the owner of Russia due to leaving machinery at the work site and drinking low alcohol, etc. during the repair process.