(a) pay 75,377,542 won and 58,916,252 won and 15% interest per annum from December 31, 2016 to the date of full payment;

B. To deliver movable property listed in the attached Form;

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaging in the business of manufacturing and selling health and food products related to biotechnology, organizational engineering, gene engineering and medical equipment. The Defendant is a non-profit medical corporation with the aim of improving the national health and developing the local community through research and development on health and medical services.

B. On January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied GG HPV-40 DNA genotyping chip [chip used to examine whether the Plaintiff is infected by HPV (HPV, which is a major cause of the JPV cancer; hereinafter “HPV chip”) (hereinafter “HPV chip”) and GGSTDDDD chip [chip used to examine whether the instant equipment, which is a relevant inspection equipment, is infected by disease; hereinafter “STS chip”), and entered into a contract to lease the instant equipment, which is a related inspection equipment, at KRW 700,000,00 per month (hereinafter “instant contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant equipment to the Defendant.

C. The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

Article 1 (Purpose of this Convention) of the Plaintiff’s Schedule 2. The purpose of this Convention is to provide for mutual cooperation and roles in conducting the Defendant’s business of selling and testing DNA chips (hereinafter “purpose business”). Article 2 (Scope of Business) (1) The Plaintiff’s domestic sales business of HPV chips provided by the Plaintiff; (2) the sales business of DNA chips under Article 3 (1) of the Inspection Business related to paragraph (1) shall be as follows: (1) The Defendant shall supply the Plaintiff’s products to the Defendant for a period of at least 0 years after consultation with the Defendant’s self-inspection chips; and (2) the Plaintiff shall separately provide the Defendant with at least six (0) months of non-exclusive sales of the Plaintiff’s sale of the NA chips; and (3) the Plaintiff shall separately determine the sale price of the NA chips for the Defendant’s own inspection chips and the supply price of the NA chips for the Defendant’s own inspection 2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination as to claim for damages due to the failure to meet the minimum purchase volume

1) The part of HPV chips in 2015

The Defendant decided to purchase at least 24,00 HV chips from the Plaintiff for the year 2015 at KRW 6,600 as seen earlier, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 10 and No. 3, the Defendant purchased only 18,58T for the period 2015 when the Plaintiff purchased HPV chips from the Plaintiff and purchased HPV chips for less than 24,00T, and the cost of manufacturing HPV chips is KRW 5,605 (= KRW 14,014,912 + KRW 2,500; less than KRW 2,500; hereinafter the same).

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the difference between 23,880,00 won [=24,00T x (6,600 won per sales price - 5,605 won perT) x 18,495,060 won [ = 18,588T x 6,600 won - 5,605 won per T manufacturing price)], which is the difference between the plaintiff's sales profit (24,80,000 won per T sales price x 6,600 won - 5,605 won per T manufacturing price) and the actual profit 18,495,060 won].

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the HPV chips were purchased under the minimum purchase quantity in 2015 of the instant contract because the Plaintiff failed to repair the instant equipment from time to time, and thus, the Defendant is not liable to compensate the Plaintiff for business losses caused by the failure to meet the minimum purchase quantity in 2015. However, in light of the fact that the instant equipment, which was acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 4, appears to have been broken after June 20, 2016, the Defendant appears to have continued to use the instant equipment for the period of 2015. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the instant equipment under the minimum purchase quantity in 2015 of the instant contract because the Plaintiff did not repair the instant equipment from time to time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) Part of the chip in 2015

The fact that the Defendant intended to purchase at least 20,000 TPP chips from the Plaintiff for a period of 2015 is as seen earlier, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 4, 11, and 16, the Defendant purchased TPP chips from the Plaintiff for a period of 2015 only 96T which is less than 20,000T of the minimum purchase quantity of the instant contract, and the production cost per TPP chips is 4,932 won (=12,31,577 won ± 2,500T).

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 41,161,472, which is the difference between KRW 41,360,00 [=20T x (sale price of KRW 7,932 per x T manufacturing cost - T manufacturing cost of KRW 4,932] and the actual profit gained by the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff sold 20,00T, the minimum purchase volume of the 20,000 chips in 2015] and KRW 198,528 [=96T sales price of KRW 96T x 7,00 - T manufacturing cost of KRW 4,932];

The Defendant asserts that, after the contract of this case, it is unfair in light of the good faith principle to maintain the minimum purchase volume of STPP chips of this case due to significant changes in the situation, such as that the Health Insurance Activity Benefit List and Benefit Points Points (Notice of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 2014-195, hereinafter “Notification of this case”) was amended and the market situation was changed, and the Plaintiff also knew of such changes in the situation, the Defendant is not liable to compensate the Plaintiff for business losses due to the minimum purchase volume of STPP chips. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s statement Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence No. 2, the witness’s testimony, and the overall purport of the arguments, the Defendant’s announcement of this case was made before Oct. 31, 2014, and it appears that there was no possibility of the Plaintiff’s announcement of the change in the circumstances as stated above. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25060, Oct. 14, 2014>

3) The part of HPV chips in 2016

Upon entering into the instant contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed on the minimum purchase volume of HPV 2016 according to the sales performance in 2015. The Defendant decided to purchase the HPV chips from the Plaintiff in 2016 at a price of at least 6,600 won per T market price. The fact that the HPV chip’s T production cost of KRW 5,605 is as follows: (a) written evidence Nos. 4, 5,15, and 17; (b) Nonparty 1’s testimony on April 5, 2016; and (c) the overall purport of Nonparty 2’s argument at part of Nonparty 1’s testimony is to recognize only the Defendant’s HV chips for the purpose of smooth cooperation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on 2015 and at least 24,00T purchase volume of at least 20,000T 16th quarter; and (c) the Defendant’s additional statement of 301,50/6th quarter of 20.

According to the above facts, around April 5, 2016, the Defendant decided to purchase at least 27,60T (i.e., at least 24,00T + at least 3,600T in 2015) from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for at least 27,60T (i.e., at least 24,00T in 2015 + at least 3,600T) and subsequently purchased only less than 15,168T, the Defendant was obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the difference between the sales price of HV chips at least 27,462,00 if the Plaintiff sold 27,60T in 2016.

4) Sub-determination

Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total amount of KRW 58,916,252 (=5,384,940 + KRW 41,161,472 + 12,369,840 +) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 31, 2016 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination as to the claim for the transfer, rent, etc. of the instant equipment

1) Determination as to the extradition claim

The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant contract on January 16, 2015, and determined that the term of the contract shall expire on December 31, 2016, but shall be renewed on the same condition as long as they did not notify the Defendant of the cancellation one month prior to the termination. The Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant equipment to the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract is as seen earlier, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, it may be acknowledged that the Defendant requested Nonparty 3, who belongs to the Plaintiff, to recover the instant equipment from the Plaintiff’s vice head around the beginning of November 2016, and Nonparty 3 also notified the Defendant to recover the instant equipment.

According to the above facts, the contract of this case is not renewed by notification of cancellation by both the plaintiff and the defendant at least one month prior to the expiration of the contract term, and the contract of this case is terminated on December 31, 2016. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the equipment of this case to the plaintiff.

2) Determination as to rent claim

The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant contract on January 16, 2015, determined that the instant equipment is the tea of KRW 700,000 per month, and the fact that the instant contract terminated on December 31, 2016 is as seen earlier. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff rent of KRW 16,461,290 [the rent from January 16, 2015, which entered into the instant contract to December 31, 2016, from January 31, 2016, until December 31, 2016, the instant contract was terminated.”

On June 20, 2016, the Defendant asserted that the instant equipment was damaged without the Defendant’s negligence and was not used from around October 2016 due to the deterioration of equipment, and that the subsidiary equipment leased from the Plaintiff, other than the instant equipment, was not used from the end of October, 2016, and that the Plaintiff was not obligated to pay the Plaintiff rent for the instant equipment from November 2016. According to the written evidence Nos. 12 and 4, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is acceptable. However, according to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant did not err by the Defendant with regard to the breakdown that occurred while the instant equipment was used on June 20, 2016. However, it was insufficient to acknowledge that the equipment was not entirely leased from the Plaintiff other than the instant equipment from the end of October 2016, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3) Determination as to a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Since the Defendant continued to possess the instant equipment even after the termination of the instant contract, and did not return it to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent until transferring the instant equipment to the Plaintiff.

B) Determination

However, even if the Defendant continued to possess the instant equipment even after the termination of the instant contract, as alleged by the Plaintiff, such circumstance alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant obtained substantial benefits from using and benefiting from the instant equipment according to its original purpose of lease. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the instant equipment was broken down on June 20, 2016, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant continued to use and benefit from the instant equipment for the original purpose of lease even after the termination of the instant contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4) Sub-determination

Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant equipment to the Plaintiff and pay KRW 16,461,290 to December 31, 2016 from January 16, 2015 to December 31, 2016, for the instant equipment.

C. Determination as to the claim for the cost of repairing the instant equipment

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The defendant bears the duty to return the equipment of this case to the plaintiff in the same state as at the time of entering into the contract. Since the failure occurred in the equipment of this case, the defendant is not only obligated to repair the equipment of this case, but also due to negligence in the use of the equipment of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 for the repair cost of the equipment of this case.

2) Determination

In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s failure to repair the instant equipment on June 20, 2016 can be found as follows: (a) the Plaintiff returned the leased object to the lessor under Articles 654 and 615 of the Civil Act; and (b) the fact that the instant equipment was broken down on June 20, 2016. However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant equipment was broken out due to the Defendant’s negligence during the use of the equipment; and (c) there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-gu (Presiding Judge)