May 12, 2017

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the amount of KRW 2,464,00,000 and the amount of KRW 1,60,000,000, whichever is calculated by applying each rate of 6% per annum from August 27, 2013 to September 8, 2017, respectively, for KRW 640,000,000, and from January 1, 2014 to September 8, 2017, the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the counterclaim is revoked, and the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

3. The remainder of the appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

4. (a) On the basis of the application for the return of provisional payment, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1,338,835,359, the amount calculated by applying for the return of provisional payment 5% per annum from April 29, 2015 to September 8, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remaining provisional payment claim is dismissed.

5. The total cost of the lawsuit (the cost of filing a lawsuit, counterclaim and claim for the return of provisional payment) shall be borne by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

6. Each share of the money under paragraphs (1) and (4) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

A. Main suit: The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) the amount of KRW 2,464,00,000 as well as KRW 1,60,000 as well as 6% per annum from August 27, 2013 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case; KRW 60,000,000 per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; and KRW 640,000 per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment; and KRW 20% per annum from the day of complete payment to the day of complete payment.

B. Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 1,056,00,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 6% per annum from May 30, 2013 to the service date of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Main action: Revocation of a judgment of the first instance court. It is so decided as to the purport of the principal action.

B. Counterclaim: Revocation of the judgment of the first instance court. The defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.

3. Purport of request for the return of provisional payments

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,338,835,359 with 5% per annum from April 24, 2015 to the date of the judgment of the appellate court of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

A. A. Around February 2013, the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) entered into a plan for “the completion of the production on June 30, 2013, and the completion of installation (SE-UP) on July 31, 2013,” with respect to the LAS identification system, and the production and installation of the Defendant (mutual name before the change on September 9, 2016) and the LAS identification system “the Intervenor contracted to the Defendant,” and the Defendant subcontracted to the Plaintiff on April 24, 2013, presented to the Plaintiff a letter of intent to purchase the LAS identification system with the following contents.

(a) Scope of supply: Sobre-based equipment SYTSM 1SET;

1) 1 unit of GLAS SOLMING SYSEM (Equipment for detecting the original board of the LM)

(ii) 2 sets up two glass for GLAS FINAL CLEN (a equipment setting forth glass for each L CD panel).

(iii) 2 units of equipment to remove fine dust in glass of each type L CD panel

4) One device that discharges clean air into the air after absorbing and removing pollutants from contaminated gas generated in the process of WT SCRBBE SYST (600CM, and equipment that discharges clean air into the air.)

(2) The due date for payment: June 30, 2013

(3) Supply price: Subsequent consultation;

(4) Settlement terms: 30% of advance payments, intermediate payments 40%, 30% of the balance of the examination;

B. On April 29, 2013, May 3 of the same year, May 8, 201 of the same year, May 14, 14, and May 23 of the same year, the Defendant and the Intervenor discussed the design, manufacture, and installation of the LiquefiedAS identification system. At the meetings of April 29, 2013 and the meetings of May 23, 2013, the Defendant agreed to change “the location of the installation of the SHUTER with SHFT as a component” (hereinafter “Agreement on May 23, 2013”).

1) Meeting of April 29, 2013

2. Flag;

2) necessary to review the measures of the old East East FUME and its internal structure

- SHAFT 60φ, 하중 고려한 ROLL TO ROLL 330 PITCH 줄일 수 있도록 검토 요망

2) Meeting of May 23, 2013

It is required to be marked on the outside of the days in the solarg to be sent.

: Installation of the entrance of Etch 1 chber and Etch 4 chberb

: For Etch 2chber and Ech 3chber, SHUTER removal at the entrance and exit.

C. On May 29, 2013, the Defendant submitted a estimate of the contents as indicated below (hereinafter “instant estimate”) with respect to the manufacture and installation of the L CD GLAS identification system (hereinafter “instant equipment”) as indicated below from the Plaintiff.

In the case of the unit price (wons separate from value-added tax, KRW 4,025,114,00 of the unit price for the items contained in the main sentence: GLAS Y 1st 2,908,000 2,908,000,000 2,908,000, 1st 264,100,000 264,100,000 264,100,000 265,60,000 2, 145,60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,07,000,0000,08,07,008,00

D. On May 30, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 1,056,00,000 to the Plaintiff as advance payment for the manufacture and installation of the instant equipment.

E. On May 31, 2013, the Defendant and the Intervenor consulted with the Plaintiff on 12 matters among the instant equipment, including “CHLIER FTR ETCHK,” and sent the Plaintiff “final production drawings and final specifications” of the instant equipment.

F. On June 4, 2013, the Defendant received the “PART” of the instant equipment from the Plaintiff, and the “PATRAY NZLE” was written by the JW “HT” (hereinafter referred to as the “main source”) stating that the “MAK” means the PATRALT’s survey on the “SPRY NZLE” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant list”).

G. On June 20, 2013, the Defendant was awarded a contract with the Intervenor for the manufacture, installation, etc. of the instant equipment at KRW 3,500,000 (excluding value-added tax).

H. On June 21, 2013, the Defendant and the Intervenor examined the manufacturing process of the instant equipment at the Plaintiff’s ○○ factory, and consulted on four matters, including the Plaintiff and ① the designation location of the installation of CHTR ETSK, and ② the following manufacturing process inspection date as “ July 5, 2013.”

(i) On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract from the Defendant for the manufacture, installation, etc. of the instant equipment in KRW 3,200,000 (excluding value-added tax) with the following content (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Buyer”) and the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “B”) agree with respect to the purchase of equipment as follows: Article 1 (Name, Standards, Amount, Payment Period, Terms, etc. of Products)

(1) Item: Glas Slring Syst type (hereinafter referred to as “products”)

(2) Specifications: In accordance with the order, estimates, drawings, and specifications,

(3) Contract amount: 300,000,000,000

(1) Advance payment-contract amount: 30%: Within 14 days after the conclusion of a contract.

(2) 50% of the intermediate payment-contract amount: Payment within 14 days after completion of storage of goods.

(3) The balance 20% of the contract amount: The payment as of the end of the following month after the completion/approval of the final inspection.

(4) Payment date: July 30, 2013

(5) Defect performance guarantee insurance policy: 10% of the total contract amount;

(6) Defect warranty period: 12 months from the date of passing the final inspection;

Article 3 (Scope of Contracts)

This contract shall have the effect of mutual supplementation, including an order sheet, drawings, specifications, and estimates.

§ 4. Manufacturing and delivery of products

(1) “B” must immediately request “A” to conduct the primary inspection after making a product in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the order sheet, drawings, specifications, and estimates.

(2) “A” shall conduct an examination of the product for which “B” has requested an examination pursuant to paragraph 1, and shall notify “B” of whether “B” has passed the examination in writing within seven days from the date of the request for examination by “B.” If “B” does not have the notice of passing the examination within the said period, it shall be deemed that “B” passed the first examination after the lapse of the said period.

(3) If a person fails to pass the primary inspection, “B” shall, as required by “A”, repair the product or re-manufacture the defective product and undergo a re-examination of “A”.

(4) In the event that the primary examination under this section has passed, “B” shall deliver the product to the place designated by “A”, and “B” shall prepare a written confirmation of acceptance and deliver it to “B”, provided that the expenses incurred in the delivery of the product shall be borne by “B”.

(5) “B” shall prepare drawings and specifications prior to the manufacture of the goods in Article 1, and shall be made after obtaining the approval of “A”.

(6) All parts required for the manufacture of goods under a contract shall be used as parts in conformity with the KS or JIS standards.

○ Article 5 (Inspection of Trial Operation and Final Inspection)

(1) “B” shall immediately commence the installation and work of “A” after delivery of the product to a place designated pursuant to Article 4, and conduct a trial run in the presence of “A” and request “A” to conduct a final inspection.

(2) “A” shall conduct a final inspection on a product in accordance with the orders, drawings, specifications, estimates, and other mutually agreed evaluation criteria, and “B” shall notify “B” in writing as to whether the product has passed the final inspection within 20 days from the date on which the final inspection is requested. If “A” has not been notified within the said period, the product shall be deemed to have passed the final inspection upon the lapse of the said period. At the time of passing the final inspection of the product, the risk burden on the product concerned shall be transferred to “B” when “A” pays the entire contract amount to “B”, and “A” shall educate its officers and employees of the guidelines for handling the product.

(3) If a person fails to pass the final inspection, “B” shall, as required by “A”, repair the product or re-manufacture the defective product and undergo a re-examination of “A”.

(4) If “B” fails to pass the final inspection by the date specified in Section 1(4), “B” shall be liable for delay as provided in this Agreement.

(5) “B” shall at any time report to “A” the production, installation, and the progress of trial operation of the product at the request of “A”.

§ 12. Defects repairs and deposits

(1) “B” guarantees that the product “A” and “B” are operated in conformity with the standards agreed upon and normally.

(2) “B” is liable to repair without compensation any defects arising in connection with the manufacture and installation of the products for one year from the date of passing the final inspection of “A” (hereinafter referred to as “the warranty period”).

(4) In the event of a defect that occurs without any cause attributable to A during the warranty period and that it is impracticable to repair the defect, “B” shall manufacture and replace the same product free of charge until the period required by “A”.

(5) Where “B” fails to perform a defect repair obligation under this Article, neglects the performance thereof, or it is found that “B”’s performance of the defect repair obligation is inappropriate to use the product in fact due to incomplete circumstances, “B” shall notify the content thereof to “B” and may repair the defect directly or by entrustment to it to a third party, and the expenses incurred in the repair thereof shall be borne by “B”.

(6) “B” may be executed on behalf of a third party designated by “A” or “A” in the event that “A” receives a request for repair of defects from “A” and fails to comply therewith, provided that in this case “A” shall be notified in writing to “B” in advance, and the detailed cost details and work details shall be determined by separate agreements.

○ Article 14 (Payment of Contract Amount)

(1) “A” shall pay to “B” any balance other than advance and intermediate payments paid to “B” by the end of the month following the month in which the final inspection of Article 5 is completed.

§ 22. Cancellation and termination of a contract

(1) “A” or “B” may cancel or terminate all or part of this Agreement without going through a separate peremptory notice if any of the following causes arises to the other party:

(5) If the refusal to perform the terms of any other contract is expressed directly or indirectly.

(2) “A” or “B” may either cancel or terminate all or part of this Agreement if the other party has given written notice of performance to the other party when any of the following causes has occurred and the other party has not performed as notified by the other party even one month.

(1) Where the other party fails to perform the terms of this contract.

(2) Where the specifications and performance of products manufactured or manufactured by “B” fall short of the standards agreed upon by “A” and “B” and the purpose of the contract is deemed impossible or likely to be impracticable.

§ 23. Effect upon cancellation or termination of a contract

(2) If this contract has been terminated or terminated due to the cause attributable to “B”, “B” shall return advance payments, etc. received from “B” and shall deliver to “A” all the results and materials, etc. which it had performed so that “A” may continue to carry out subsequent work for the completion of this product.

○ Article 24 (Other Provisions)

(3) This Agreement may not be amended, cancelled, or modified unless the Parties so agree in writing, and may not be amended on the grounds of customs, commercial practices, past transactions between the parties, etc.

(j) On June 28, 2013, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a note stating that “The data arranged the contents examined as of June 21, 2013,” “In the process of manufacturing equipment, the Defendant attached a photograph indicating that the “PVIE” used in the instant equipment was the product of the Henent Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Japan”) by inserting the content examined as of June 21, 2013.

(k) On July 5, 2013, the Defendant and the Intervenor: (a) conducted an examination of the specifications of the instant equipment at the Plaintiff’s ○○ factory on July 5, 2013; (b) consulted on the Defendant’s 19 demands for the establishment of the 19 food equipment parts to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff; and (c) decided to examine at the Plaintiff’s △△△ factory after installing the food equipment parts to “ July 19, 2013”; (d) consulted on the Defendant’s six requests for the Defendant’s YTSM during the three regular SYM between Maritime Affairs and the Plaintiff, instead of submitting a report on the manufacturing process of the equipment to the Defendant on July 12, 2013; and (b) submitted from the Plaintiff on July 11, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a photograph by which the “PPEE” in the PVAE is “Japan interest.”

(l) On July 26, 2013, the Defendant and the Intervenor inspected the instant equipment at the Plaintiff’s △△ factory, and agreed with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff regarding the nine Defendant’s request form with respect to SLIMIN SYSTM, and ② the Plaintiff’s △△ factory on July 31, 2013 to conduct a test of the AUTO test at the Plaintiff’s △△△ factory, “D, UL/D previous section AUTO test.”

(m) On July 31, 2013, the Defendant and the Intervenor conducted a trial test on the previous section of the instant equipment by examining all the processes of moving the instant equipment using the CASETTE that actually inputs in connection with the Plaintiff’s △△△ factory, and agreed on the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s request formation regarding the instant equipment.

(n) On August 5, 2013, the Defendant and the Intervenor: (a) examined the instant equipment at the Plaintiff’s △△ factory and ○○ factory; and (b) decided to install a mutual assistance facility (facilities to reduce changes in temperature and habitance in the space where machinery or equipment are installed) by August 12, 2013 to the supplementary intervenor’s shuttle factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) located in the city of official residence; and (c) agreed with the Plaintiff on the Defendant’s request for the delivery of the instant equipment to the instant factory on August 12, 2013; and (d) agreed with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s request for the delivery of 10 items on the Plaintiff’s request form and 10 items on SYM and 5 items on detailed SYEM.

(o) On August 6, 2013, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the date of the entry of the instant equipment under the title “Glas Slring Slring - Fab. The present condition,” which read, “The Fab. Working Environment: the part of the mutual assistance machine cannot be reflected in the budget, and it is demanded in the Sobvena (Defendant) that “I would not provide the Fab. Working Environment: the part of the mutual assistance machine may not be reflected in the budget, and even in the sobvena (Defendant), I would be able to reduce the internal temperature of Fab.”

(p) On August 9, 2013, the Defendant sent a camera to the Plaintiff: (i) “ASE (Plaintiffs) prepared a thorough scenario to minimize the problem arising from the exposure to the equipment due to the breadth at the time of carrying in the instant equipment; (ii) he was equipped with the following contents by the Plaintiff; and (iii) the date of installation of the instant equipment: 13 days (12 days are difficult to install as equipment entry) until it covers the Fab roof; (iii) prepared to prevent the Plaintiff from opening the string, and sent the string in order to prevent the string, and (iv) he was provided with the passage of the string to the Plaintiff.”

2. A schedule for bringing in equipment: Commencement of bringing in from 8/12 (Monthly) to 05:00.

Work commences from the point of view that leads to the risk of demalation and equipment;

3. Cases of adjustment of working hours;

From 07:00 p.m., proposed by Nonindicted Party 2’s thickness, work concentration shall begin on the A.m., and after the occupation, it is anticipated that the maximum working hours will be utilized with sufficient rest during the s.m. hours, after the occupation.

4. Cases of installing air-conditioners in the Room;

4-1) At the request of the work environment, the installation of air conditioners was notified by Non-Indicted 2 of the thickness of 8/8 (15:30 minutes) Non-Indicted 2’s regular business.

4-2) At the time when the air conditioner is installed, whether it is possible or not to confirm, and to request a reply.

(q) On August 12, 2013, among the instant equipment, the Plaintiff supplied each of the instant equipment to the NAN UN IT on August 12, 2013, on the following grounds: (a) the auxiliary intervenor failed to complete the construction of the instant plant as indicated below 1; (b) supplied the remainder of the equipment; (c) issued a supply confirmation on August 12, 2013, and August 23, 2013; and (b) on August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied each of the instant equipment to the NAN UNIT on September 25, 2013; and (d) supplied all of the instant equipment to the NACRN UNN on September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the NAPPE as a part of the NAD ECH, the NANN NANN NANN YE YE ACT, and the supply of the instant equipment to the NAN.

(i) the reason why the three-regular main body, CHALER, FN UNIT is not supplied;

(1) For the three-regular main body: The cudio construction shall not be completed.

(2) A water cooling type CHLIER: CHLALERRACK (BB) No completion of construction works shall be made.

(3) FN UN IT: No retaining wall construction is completed.

2) Environments for the supply of ETCHER, FILTS PRES, and CLEERN

① ETCHER: From 07:00 to 17:00 on August 12, 2013, the roof of the factory of this case was stored as Creicks, and the factory of this case was exposed to a straight light line because the roof of the factory of this case was not 3/4, and there was no cooperative facility installed in the factory of this case.

(2) FILTS PRES: From August 12, 2013: From 15:00 on August 12, 2013, to 17:00 on straight lines, and not exposed to straight lines.

(3) CLENER: Not exposed to a straight-luminous line on August 29, 2013 (clocks)

(r) On August 13, 2013, the Defendant, with respect to the installation of the instant equipment (SET-UP), ordered to arrange the preparation of the following descriptions until August 16, 2013:

1. Equipment EST-UP schedule: A summary of the subject-matter of the determination after organizing specific items (for example, customers (Supplementary Intervenor), immigrationes (Defendants), and facility companies (Plaintiffs));

2. Various specifications, minutes, and fiscal nets of equipment (documents & PC files);

3. As to the matters to be arranged outside of all kinds of authorization and permission of equipment, customer affairs shall be notified to the customer, & consultation materials, etc.

(s) The Plaintiff started work from August 14, 2013, “GLAS RoBOS UNCIE-UP”.

(t. On August 16, 2013, the Defendant received from the Plaintiff the entire “final production drawings, license location drawings” as the main date of the instant equipment (hereinafter “final design drawings”)

(u) On August 17, 2013, the Defendant found CRCEK (the records of this case are recorded as ruptures and blackouts, but all of CRAK) in its attached Form 1. L6 ETSBD CCRK accident report (Evidence A No. 43), and ② on August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff consulted with the following contents as the “L6 ECHSTSTST SCE MCE MCE MCE MCEINGG” agenda, and ③ around August 22, 2013, the Defendant installed an air conditioner at the location where the washing process of the instant equipment is installed, and ④ on August 28, 2013, CHCEK’s installation of equipment and response procedures are very important to prevent the recurrence from being carried out, and the content of the CRCRM’s installation and response procedures are very important to prevent the recurrence from being carried out.

1. L6ECHER SCE-UP METING;

1) the final copy of the SET-UP Schedula (Plaintiff)

▷ 8/20일 제출예정

2) Countermeasures against the occurrence of ETCHER CrownK (Plaintiff)

▷ 8/22일 제출예정

3) Estimated confirmation of the possible date of carrying Glass Final Cleer (Defendant)

4) Tank Lek Bax (20t) operations

(v) From August 28, 2013 to September 4, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the contact work with respect to ETRACK, and performed the installation (ES-UP) of the instant equipment that is not related to the contact work during the said period. From September 4, 2013 to September 4, 2013, the Plaintiff performed the installation of the instant equipment (ES-UP) such as the installation of separate pipelines (TNK TRDAIN), DIW LWUHIN STRT (DW Dozed before the operation of the instant equipment) by inserting the instant equipment into the instant equipment and inspecting the leakage of equipment.

저. 피고는 ① 2013. 8. 29. 원고에게 이 사건 장비에 대하여 "MAKER"가 주원인 NOZZLE 대신 "◇◇◇◇◇◇◇" 또는 "☆☆☆☆☆☆"인 NOZZLE의 적용 가능 여부를 문의하면서 "◇◇◇◇◇◇◇, ☆☆☆☆☆☆로 변경할 경우 납기의 문제가 발생하여 양산일정 지연 문제가 대두될 수 있으므로 빠른 결정 부탁드린다"는 내용이 기재된 메일을 보냈고, ② 2013. 8. 30. 원고로부터 주원이 만든 NOZZLE이 이 사건 장비에 적합하다는 답변을 받았다(이하 ‘이 사건 2013. 8. 30.자 답변’이라 한다).

(x) On September 6, 2013, the Defendant, as from September 12, 2013, had the Plaintiff’s employees settled in the instant plant for the installation of the instant equipment (ST-UP). As such, the Defendant had changed the installation of the instant equipment (EST-UP) work as indicated below.

1. In preparation forCCS Inc. and Pro rata: September 17;

- At HNC up to September 10, 1900, the establishment of a lugal equipment

- To proceed after the completion of the HNC work.

2. The date of completion of the Rlobot snow and Conn Section (all works related to Rlobot except the work of Rlobot Taching);

- The Tenth of September 10

- the 14th day of September;

- The Robot Tachling work shall proceed after the Kabot storage.

3. The date on which the model I/O ck is completed;

- Completion of September 11, including this equipment/Tank / Pump/ Sringle

4. Schedule for the control of themer;

- The Tenth of September 10

- Completion of I/O heck on September 13

5. Food PLC and teoless Write works;

- As of September 12

6. The date on which the EST-UP resident stay in the △ business place, a ESE control manager, is located;

- from September 12 to April 12,

(y) On September 11, 2013, and September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant conducted a complete inspection of the difference between the parts indicated in the instant quotation and the parts used in the instant equipment and prepared a physical list (hereinafter “instant physical list”).

(z) On September 12, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant the instant Schedll that was the expiration date of installation (EST-UP) of “No. 30 September 30, 2013,” while performing installation (ST-UP) as indicated in the “plan” column and “0%” column of attached Table 2 at the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant equipment to the Defendant, and the Defendant, around that time, delivered the instant equipment installation (SET-UP) work plan to the Intervenor as the said Schedlle table.

(aa) On September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the suspension of the last installation (ES-UP) work of the instant plant on the grounds that “the Defendant did not pay an intermediate payment of KRW 1,600,000,000 to August 26, 2013, the intermediate payment payment date pursuant to Article 1(3) of the instant purchase contract.”

b. On September 14, 2013 and September 17, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the following contents, demanding the Plaintiff to perform the instant contract according to the instant quotation.

1) Notice dated September 14, 2013

1. On September 11, 2013, you confirmed the fact that the equipment supplied to Sobro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro ro Doro ro na Doro Doro ro Doro ro

4.However, if you wish not to assume these responsibilities, you shall urge you to implement in good faith:

(i) specify the details of the supply of the equipment with other parts and quantities specified in the estimates, etc.;

(ii) to prepare complementary measures for the equipment that do not conform to the specification of the equipment specified in the estimates, etc.;

(iii) cooperate promptly in the SET-UP and trial operation of equipment on the basis of the above complementary measures;

2) Notice dated September 17, 2013

2. Accordingly, the "Guide Dobro" shall urge Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro Doro

5. Finally, the Sobrid "I" urge you to disclose to you a specific plan (such as the method, time, etc.) for the supply of complete equipment that conforms to the equipment specification by September 27, 2013. If you do not disclose a specific plan by the aforesaid deadline, you will notify you that you do not have to take civil and criminal measures, namely, the Sobrid "I", if you do not disclose the specific plan by the aforesaid deadline.

C. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff suspended the installation of the instant equipment (SE-UP) upon receipt of the Defendant’s notification as of September 17, 2013, and then requested the Defendant to pay intermediate payments on September 17, 2013; ② the piracy was sent on September 23, 2013, September 25, 2013, and September 26, 2013; ③ the minutes prepared or received during the period, and 290 copies were sent, and ③ the part payments was sought on September 26, 2013.

(dd) On September 30, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the demand for the performance of contractual obligations under the purchase contract for equipment, along with the “equipment Question, SET-UP Question, and General Question” to the effect that the Plaintiff faithfully respond to the questionnaire by October 2, 2013.

Do. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the equipment supplied to the Plaintiff is equipment that does not conform to the standards prescribed in the quotation, etc., and notified the Defendant of the details of the supply of the equipment to promptly cooperate with the EST-UP and trial operation of the equipment, etc. Unlike written estimates, etc., the Plaintiff issued an order through all data requested by the Defendant, but the Plaintiff requires additional explanation, and thus faithfully answers. Furthermore, the method of demonstrating that the equipment is not in compliance with the standards prescribed in the quotation, etc. is the best way to promptly verify that it is a normal equipment after completing the SET-UP and to verify that it is a normal equipment. From October 2, 2013 to October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant.

Ga. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was refused to perform the installation (EST-UP) work from the Defendant. ② On October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s inquiry on September 30, 2013, and ③ on October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant contract would be completed smoothly with the Defendant’s opinion on the “whether to pay a heavy amount of money” and “whether work is in progress.”

(gg) On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff stated that “On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to grant work approval to the Defendant for the rapid completion of the SET-UP to ensure that it is necessary to maintain a certain level of habits because of the characteristics of the equipment that is very weak to the CRACK due to the nature of the equipment, and that “The Plaintiff reply to the approval of the work until November 21, 2013.”

B. On November 20, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant contract was rescinded pursuant to Article 22(1)5, 22(2)1, and 2 of the instant contract.

1. On June 24, 2013, the Sobridian (Defendant) and Egypt (Plaintiff) concluded a contract to purchase equipment (hereinafter “this contract” and attached materials”) on June 24, 2013, and according to Article 22(1)5 of the present contract, Egyptian “where Egyptian expressed, directly or indirectly, his refusal to implement any other terms and conditions of the contract” are provided that “Egyptian may immediately rescind the entire contract.”

Even though the Sobromanian demanded the supply of equipment in compliance with the equipment specification several times, including the content-certified mail on September 17, 2013, you have no choice but to directly or indirectly indicate the refusal of the implementation of this contract.

2. In addition, according to Section 2, Section 2, of this Agreement, if you fail to comply with the terms of this Agreement, or if it is found or likely that the purposes of this Agreement could not be achieved because the specifications of products manufactured or manufactured by you fall short of the specifications of products under this Agreement, they may cancel the entire contract after one month after the notice of performance in writing.

The supply of equipment that is not in conformity with the equipment specification constitutes a failure to comply with the terms of this contract, and the supply of the equipment by your company constitutes a case where it is deemed or is likely to achieve the purpose of the contract because the equipment specification falls short of the equipment specification. Moreover, the Sobridon's notice to supply complete equipment in the content-certified mail of September 17, 2013, which is in conformity with the equipment specification, however, after the lapse of one month, you are not implementing the sobridon's obligation until the last day of the month.

3.The series of actions of your company as above fall under Section 22, Section 1, Section 5 and Section 2 of the present contract, and this " Sobrid" notifies your company of the cancellation of this contract.

Pursuant to the cancellation of this contract, you shall return advance payments, etc. received from Sobridna (see Article 23(2) of the present contract). Thus, you urge Sobrid to return advance payments of KRW 960,000,000 paid by Sobridna on May 30, 2013 to Sobridna, respectively.

(B) On the other hand, the glass for LV (Liquid Cryst Dislay) panel is short and short so it is good that it can be seen as a part to reduce the thickness of Dislay Wedows, and in a way of spraying the surface by melting the surface thereof. Of the parts of the instant equipment, PVPLAE is a part covering the exterior of the instant equipment and enhancing the durability of equipment by protecting equipment from the process of chemical medicine generated in the process of corrosion, and its durability and stability are especially required. ② NOZLE is an important part to ensure equal convenience as a part of chemical medicine in the process of corrosion, and its initial size and quantity are determined in terms of the installation of the equipment, and its initial content and quantity are determined in terms of the installation of the equipment, and ③ the installation of the equipment is determined in terms of the installation of the equipment in terms of the equipment in terms of the initial size and quantity of the equipment in terms of convenience.

(o) The difference between ① the manufacture (MAV) and the quantity of the parts listed in the instant estimate and the parts listed in the instant physical list, ② the difference between the PVC PALTE and NPEE, and the difference between the quantity and quantity of each MAGE, SHAFT products, and the difference between the quantity and quantity (hereinafter referred to as “the defect in each of the instant PVC PPEPALE”), ③ the defect in the instant equipment, ④ the defect in the instant equipment, ④ the defect in the instant equipment, ④ the CCRK located in the PVCEE, ⑤ the appraisal of the possibility of non-indicted 2010 and the possibility of non-indicted 2140,000 as the result of the instant appraisal (hereinafter referred to as the “instant appraisal”) and the assessment of the possibility of non-indicted 214,00,000.

1) The difference between the manufacturing (MAKER) and the quantity of the parts listed in the instant written estimate and the parts listed in the instant physical list is as follows:

(The following table omitted):

2) The respective details of the instant PECE products defects, of the NZLE defects, and of the instant SHFT defects are as follows:

A) Details of defects in the instant PVC PLAET products

(The following table omitted):

B) Details of the defects of the NZLE of the instant case

(The following table omitted):

C) Details of the defective facts of the instant SHFT

(The following table omitted):

3) Defects existing in the instant equipment

1. Defect of the CRACK of the PVC PLTE

② Defects in any change in the quantity and quantity of SPRAY NZLE MAKE (this case NZLE defects)

3) Defects in the volume of the SHFT (Defects in this case)

④ Defects, such as changes in the volume and quantity of PVC PALE MAE MAE Products (Defects of this case)

(5) Whether the equipment of this case is leaked through external gapss, etc. inside CHABE, or fume shall be determined only by actually operating the equipment of this case.

4) The occurrence and cause of the instant PVC PETE CRCK defects

① The PVCK is confirmed to have occurred at the time of August 28, 2013 after the entry into the Republic of Korea on August 12, 2013.

② Considering that the temperature in the official zone in which the instant plant was located after the storage of the instant equipment is 10°C’s average, and that the PVC usage temperature is 60°C’s maximum, -15°C’s minimum, the failure to install a cooperation device may not be deemed as a cause of the occurrence of PVC CRCK.

③ The reason for PVCK appears to be an inappropriate consequence of the PVC water nature and solution work, and it appears that the Plaintiff’s production defect was the Plaintiff’s defect. On August 2013, 2013, it appears that the PVCK’s progress was promoted on the ground that the Defendant was not equipped with the port temperature facilities.

5) The instant PVC PLATE CRCK defects and possibility of leakage of fume, etc.

(1) There is a risk of leakage, such as an infertility and fume, by the PVCRK.

② In addition, it appears that the non-explosive amount is not leaked due to CHABER parts. However, it is necessary to fully install the instant equipment and conduct a test for trial operation.

C. As to the equipment of this case, ① The appraisal results of Nonindicted 4 of the first instance trial appraiser Nonindicted 4 (as of July 13, 2015 on the appraisal date) are as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20148, Jul. 13, 2015>

1) Characteristics of the instant equipment

(1) A facility that requires caution for the leakage of a hazardous material in the relevant process due to the process of using a hazardous material in the process of glass erosion.

② The instant equipment consists of an area consisting of an area consisting of an area consisting of an area consisting of an area consisting of an area consisting of an area consisting of an area consisting of an area

2) The installation environment of the instant equipment

① There is no cooperative facility installed at a location with RINSE and ETCH process facilities among the instant equipment.

(2) Among the instant equipment, air conditioners are installed where washing process equipment is installed.

3) Formation of the framework of the instant equipment (FRAME)

(1) Press: Design and installation of a single structure with metal (S41, SPIPE).

(2) External materials: Design and installation of a single structure in the form of PVC (for example, general sets of voltages) and PVC (fortude, transparent length of pressureing).

(3) Design drawings of the presses and external materials (PVC) and external shapes installed.

A person shall be appointed.

4) Location of CRACK of the instant equipment PVC PALE

① Most of the PVC (general, transparent) PLATRCE CCRK is a low fighting power, modified power, and internal proof that occurs inside the PALCK (in the event that an external force ( external force) serves as a material. Although the external force increases as a result of the increase of external force, it is impossible to resist the external force if the response limit reaches the unique limit of the material, and the material is destroyed by mathing, etc.) is generated from an vulnerable form, such as a negative part, mast, etc. where the response limit reaches the unique limit of the material.

(2) It shall be deemed that opportunched by heat expansion or heat rupture in the outside, shock, or PVC force generated from heat expansion or heat rupture.

③ CHABE of the instant equipment is a structure connected to each other, and if there occurs a change in length in either of the structures, it is not a structure to resolve the response ability arising therefrom. Thus, it is determined that there is a high possibility that the CRCK may occur in vulnerable shapes, such as emuli and marigate, in which the response ability was mapd within the structure, and the response ability is concentrated due to temperature changes.

5) The causes of the occurrence of the CRACK of the instant equipment PVC PE

① 2013. 8. 17. 발견된 CRACK은, 이 사건 장비의 CHAMBER는 조립된 상태에서 운반, 설치되었는데, CHAMBER의 운반· 설치를 위하여 CHAMBER를 이동하고 상·하차하였을 경우에 휨 또는 변형에 의한 외부 응력이 발생했을 것으로 추정되어, 외부 충격 혹은 최초 용접 결함이나 변형으로 PVC CRACK이 발생한 것으로 판단됨

② On August 17, 2013, the CCRK generated after the contact (repair) of CCRK was discovered on August 17, 2013. In the case of PVC the relationship with which the instant equipment was stored and not operated for about 22 months after the installation of the instant equipment in the instant plant, it is determined that CCRK was generated from vulnerable shapes, such as e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., 35° for the temperature difference from 35° -15° for 50° e.g., 15§L., 4.0mm.

③ Since the instant equipment was put into the factory on August 12, 2013, left alone in the environment where cooperation facilities have not been operated for more than 22 months, it is determined that the instant equipment was caused by the occurrence and expansion of the CCRK of the instant equipment PVCE.

6) The possibility of repair and repair cost of the instant equipment PVC PLCE’s CRAK repair cost

① In ordinary connection with the product of the PVC material, the PVC contact equipment is used, and the PVC contact equipment of the “PVC contact guidelines” submitted by the Plaintiff is determined as well as suitable equipment.

(2) PVC is of such material as may be suitable for changing the form if heat is reheat after heat is added thereto, and the form may be changed if heat is reheat.

3. The PVC PALTE, in which the CRACK takes place, shall be able to repair by reheatating by the PVC contact equipment.

④ The cost of repair of the PVC PALE CRCK is equivalent to the total of KRW 16,235,624 as of July 2015.

7) Feasibility of the existence of the USTRACK in the PVC PALE of the instant equipment

① Since the CTRACK, which occurred from the instant equipment, is CTRACK, caused by its internal response to the temperature change, and thus, it is difficult to determine that it is difficult for the STRACK to occur.

② If the CRCK was caused by a collision, falling, etc. that act outside, it may be possible that the CRCK exists due to a sudden shock, but the CRACK generated from the equipment of this case is not the CRCK due to such shock.

8) The risk of leakage of the instant equipment by CRACK of the PVC PEE

① The instant equipment is difficult to be deemed as having a structure that can entirely cover fume, etc. that may occur in the ETCH process from outside.

② There is a air exhauster discharging external fume, etc. generated from ETCH process, and it is determined that in the inside of ETCH process where dangerous substances can exist due to such device, gases such as fume, etc. are difficult to leak out to CHBER because there is no pressure exceeding atmospheric pressure.

9) Performance of the Center (LEAK SESOR) to be used or used in the instant equipment.

① In a case where the amount used is leaked into various safety devices attached to the instant equipment, a ELAK SNSR and a program are installed to automatically reduce the amount used for the instant equipment to stop the operation of the instant equipment.

② The leakage license installed in the instant equipment (LEAK SENSS) is difficult or impossible to reduce the amount of a small amount of water leakage or gaseous condition (fume, including fume).

③ Although relevant consensus is not actually installed in the ETCH process, etc. of the instant equipment, the installation and warning program of a license (LEAK SES) to reduce the amount of water leakage can be realized in reality. As such, the installation and warning program of the instant equipment is a technology that can not be easily realized, and thus, the objective of “the early recognition and measure of the leakage of dangerous substances” can be achieved by installing the pertinent license in various places different from other processes in the ETCH process of the instant equipment.

[Based on] A’s without dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 17, evidence Nos. 19 through 21, evidence Nos. 26, evidence Nos. 28, evidence Nos. 31 through 33, evidence Nos. 39, evidence Nos. 43 through 46, evidence Nos. 48, evidence No. 54 through 57, evidence No. 59, evidence No. 61, evidence Nos. 64, evidence Nos. 66, evidence Nos. 5 through 8, evidence Nos. 12, evidence Nos. 13, evidence Nos. 23 through 25, evidence Nos. 28, evidence No. 32, evidence No. 39, evidence No. 40, evidence No. 47 and evidence No. 47 of the testimony of Non-Indicted Party No. 4, evidence No. 14 of the first instance trial, evidence No. 5 through 8, evidence No. 137 and evidence No.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. As to the plaintiff's ground of appeal

1) Part on the part demanding the payment of intermediate payments

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, since the Defendant received the instant equipment from the Plaintiff on August 12, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,60,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the intermediate payment of the instant contract until August 26, 2013, which is within 14 days from the date of delivery pursuant to Article 1(3)2 of the instant contract, pursuant to Article 1(2) of the said contract.

2) The remainder payment claim portion

According to the facts established earlier, ① the Defendant did not pay intermediate payments to the Plaintiff by August 26, 2013, despite having received the instant equipment from the Plaintiff on August 12, 2013 at the instant plant, and ② the Defendant received a claim for intermediate payment from the Plaintiff on September 13, 2013, but actually rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for intermediate payment on September 14, 2013 and September 17, 2013, and ③ the Plaintiff received the aforementioned notification from the Defendant, but suspended the installation of the instant equipment (EST-UP) on September 17, 2013, and the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for removal from the Plaintiff on September 26, 2013; ④ the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on September 26, 2013; and notified the Plaintiff of the instant request for removal of equipment from the Plaintiff on September 13, 2013 (U-U-10, 2013).

Therefore, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain the Defendant’s final approval as to the instant equipment due to the Defendant’s refusal to receive the instant equipment installation (ST-UP) operation under Article 5(1) of the instant contract (ST-UP), the start-up operation of the instant equipment, and the instant equipment from the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff was not liable for nonperformance of the said obligation pursuant to Article 538(1) of the Civil Act and Article 401(2) of the Civil Act. On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff was exempted from the Defendant’s obligation to complete the final inspection and approval under Article 1(3)3 of the instant contract by providing the Defendant with the installation of the instant equipment (ST-UP) operation (ST-P) operation. Therefore, the Plaintiff may request the Defendant to perform the obligation to pay the remainder under the instant contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay 640,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax), which is 20% of the price of the instant contract, on December 31, 2013, which is the end of November 19, 2013, where the Plaintiff is exempted from the obligation to complete the said final inspection and to obtain approval pursuant to Article 1(3)3 of the instant contract, with the remainder payment to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the defendant's argument

1) The defendant's assertion

A) As the Plaintiff did not use parts according to the instant quotation, such as the instant physical list, and did not manufacture and deliver the instant equipment, it constitutes grounds for revocation under Article 22(2)1 of the instant contract.

B) The instant equipment that the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant is doubtful about its performance, durability, safety, etc. due to the use of any part different from the instant estimates, such as PVC PLTE, NOZLE, and SHAFT, and ② there is a risk that the PVCK could not achieve the purpose of the instant contract, as such, it constitutes grounds for revocation of Article 22(2)2 of the instant contract.

C) Although the Plaintiff requested implementation of the instant contract based on the instant written estimate over several times including September 14, 2013 of the Defendant, the Plaintiff refused it, which constitutes grounds for revocation under Article 22(1)5 of the instant contract.

D) Therefore, inasmuch as the instant contract was legally rescinded upon the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant counterclaim to the Plaintiff on November 20, 2013, upon receipt of the Defendant’s notice of content certification containing the Defendant’s declaration of intent to rescind on November 20, 2013, or the instant counterclaim, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the intermediate payment and remainder under Article 1(3) of the instant contract to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da3019, Apr. 26, 2017).

2) Determination as to the existence of defects in the instant equipment

A) Whether there exists any defect in the PVC PLAE products of this case and the NZLE of this case

(1) According to the facts found earlier, the Plaintiff manufactured the instant equipment using the manufacturer (MAV) and quantity indicated in the instant estimate and other PVC PALE and NOZLE. As such, there are defects in the instant equipment, such as the instant PVC PALE products and the instant NVLE products.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant approved the use of the instant equipment as one of the main products and main products on July 31, 2013, and on August 12, 2013, the Defendant did not raise any objection despite having known, or could have known, that the PVAE was a one of the instant equipment in the process of supply, etc. to the instant plant. ② On the list dated 4, 2013 and the answer of August 30, 2013 as of the instant case, the NVHE did not raise any objection against the main product. As such, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant approved the use of the PVC PVALE and NAOLE as one of the primary products and main products. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not use the equipment differently from the specifications of the instant case, and that there was no reason to acknowledge the quantity and quantity of each of the instant product as the products and each of the instant products as the products and each of the instant products and the Plaintiff’s assertion did not use it.

B) Whether there was a defect in the instant SHFT

(1) The following circumstances are revealed by the aforementioned evidence, Nonindicted 1’s testimony, and the entire purport of the argument of Nonindicted 1’s witness of the first instance trial, namely, ① the Defendant changed the location and quantity of the installation of SHUT for the parts of SHFT at its meetings as of April 29, 2013 and May 23, 2013, and agreed on May 23, 2013. ② The instant quotation did not reflect the agreement on May 23, 2013. ③ Non-Indicted 1’s employees did not know that there was an agreement on May 23, 2013, and the Defendant’s employees prepared the physical list of the instant case without the installation of the equipment, and ④ The installation and quantity of the equipment could be changed as of May 29, 2013, and the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have agreed on the installation of the equipment of the instant case without the installation of the equipment in light of the following circumstances.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant estimate on the quantity of the instant equipment’s HFT was not modified in writing, and thus, it still remains effective pursuant to Article 24(3) of the instant contract. However, each of the minutes (No. 3-1 and No. 33) stating the meeting on April 29, 2013 regarding the quantity of the HFT of the instant equipment and the meeting on May 23, 2013, can be deemed as the written agreement under Article 24(3) of the instant contract, and the agreement on May 23, 2013 falls under “an evaluation criteria agreed among the parties” under Article 5(2) of the instant contract. Thus, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

C) Whether there was a defect in the PVC PLAE CRCK of this case

(1) Whether there was a defect in the instant PVC PALTE CRCK at the time of the cancellation of the instant case

(가) 제1심 감정인 공소외 3의 감정결과에 의하면, 감정인 공소외 3은 2014. 7. 22. 감정을 위한 이 사건 공장의 현장조사를 통하여 이 사건 장비의 PVC PLATE 용접부분에서 CRACK을 발견하였고, 제1심 법원에 ‘PVC PLATE 용접부분에서 CRACK의 발생은 2013. 8. 12.부터 2013. 8. 28.까지이고, CRACK의 원인은 PVC 물성, 용접작업 부적절이다’라는 취지의 감정서를 제출하였으나, ① PVC PLATE 중 이미 용접한 부분에서 CRACK이 발견되었다면, 그 CRACK은 용접작업 이후에 발생된 것으로 보아야 하는 점, ② 한편 앞서 인정한 사실에 의하면, 원고가 PVC PLATE를 용접한 시기는 2013. 8. 28.부터 2013. 9. 4.까지인 점, ③ 감정인 공소외 3의 감정결과에 의하더라도 ‘추운 겨울철이 지나면서 기온이 낮아지면서 PVC CRACK의 진행은 더욱 증가되었다’는 것인데, 이 사건 해제 당시인 2013. 11. 20.은 추운 겨울철이 아닌 점, ④ 피고는 원고에게 이 사건 해제 당시는 물론 2013. 9. 14.자 통지, 2013. 9. 17.자 통지 및 2013. 9. 30.자 통지에서도 이 사건 장비에 설치된 사양이 이 사건 견적서의 그것과 다르다는 것을 전제로 그 교체를 요구하였을 뿐 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE에 CRACK이 있다는 지적은 전혀 하지 아니한 점[피고는 이 사건 견적서에 따라 PVC PLATE를 교체하면 CRACK은 당연히 해결되기 때문에 CRACK을 지적하지 아니하였다는 취지로 주장하나(2016. 7. 13.자 준비서면 제5면), 피고는 이 사건 견적서에 따라 PVC PLATE를 교체하는 것은 사실상 불가능하다고 인정하고 있어(2014. 6. 25.자 준비서면 제5면), 피고의 위 주장은 믿을 수 없다], ⑤ 피고는 2014. 1. 9.자 답변서에서도 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE에 CRACK이 있다는 주장을 하지 아니하였고, 피고는 2014. 2. 10. 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE에 총 108개의 CRACK이 발견된다는 균열보고서(을 제12호증)를 작성한 다음, 2013. 3. 11. 제1심 법원에 반소장을 제출하면서 비로소 위와 같은 주장(반소장 제22면 참조)을 한 점, ⑥ 감정인 공소외 3은 CRACK의 원인으로 ‘PVC 물성, 용접불량’으로만 기재하였을 뿐, 그 구체적인 근거(PVC의 어떤 물성인지, 그 물성은 제작과정에서 해소될 수 있는지, 용접을 어떻게 불량하게 하였는지 등)는 제시하지 아니하고 있는 점(제1심 감정인 공소외 3의 감정결과는 이 사건 해제 당시로부터 8개월이 지난 2014. 7. 22.경 현장조사를 기초로 이루어졌다) 등 제반사정에 비추어, 감정인 공소외 3의 위 감정결과만으로는 이 사건 해제 당시에도 이 사건 장비의 PVC PLATE에 CRACK이 존재하였다고 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(B) On August 17, 2013, if the Defendant discovered that there was CCR 1’s TPP equipment among the instant equipment, as well as Non-Indicted 1’s testimony and pleading as follows: (i) Non-Indicted 2’s equipment was non-Indicted 1’s notification of the instant equipment to the Plaintiff on August 28, 2013; and (ii) the Plaintiff did not appear to have any contact with the Plaintiff on the grounds that the equipment was non-Indicted 1’s equipment installed at the time of this case’s discovery of the instant equipment, including Non-Indicted 1’s testimony and pleading; and (iii) Non-Indicted 2’s notification of the Plaintiff’s removal of the instant equipment, including Non-Indicted 1’s installation of equipment at the time of this case’s discovery of Non-Indicted 2’s TPP equipment from August 28, 2013 to September 4, 2013.

(2) As of the date of the closing of the party hearing, whether there was a defect of the instant PVC PALTE CRCK

(A) According to the facts acknowledged earlier and the aforementioned evidence, as seen earlier, CCRK was found on February 10, 2014 in the PVCE of the instant equipment, and thus, as at the time the instant counterclaim was filed and as at the date of the closing of argument in the instant trial, it is recognized that CCRK existed in the PVCE of the instant equipment as at the time of the instant counterclaim and the date of the closing of argument in the instant trial (hereinafter referred to as “CCRK discovered on February 10, 2014”).

(나) 그러나 앞서 인정한 사실 및 앞서 든 증거에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고는 2013. 8. 5. 원고에게 “PVC 변형 문제로” 이 사건 장비의 반입예정일인 2013. 8. 12.까지 이 사건 공장에 공조시설을 설치하기로 한 점(제1심 증인 공소외 1도 ‘식각 장비는 공조시설의 설치를 전제로 하여 CRACK이 발생하지 않는 수준으로 제작된다’라는 원고 소송대리인의 신문에 대하여 ‘일부는 맞다’고 증언하였다), ② 피고는 2013. 8. 5. 원고로부터 ‘이 사건 공장에 공조시설이 설치되어 있지 아니하여 이 사건 장비의 PVC PLATE의 변형이 예상된다는 이유로 이 사건 장비의 반입일자로 예정된 2013. 8. 12.로부터 연기검토’를 요청받은 점, ③ 피고는 2013. 8. 6.경 보조참가인에게 급기팬이라도 설치하여 이 사건 공장의 내부 온도를 낮출 수 있도록 요청한 점, ④ 피고가 작성한 별지 1. L6 ETCHER BODY CRACK 사고 보고서에서도 “직사광선 노출장비 파손상태 대”라고 기재되어 있는 점, ⑤ 피고는 2013. 8. 22.경 이 사건 공장 중 이 사건 장비의 세척공정 설비가 있는 곳에 에어컨을 설치한 점, ⑥ 원고는 2013. 8. 28. 및 2013. 11. 19. 피고에게 ‘이 사건 장비의 특성상 CRACK에 매우 취약하여 일정한 온·습도의 유지가 필요하다’고 거듭 알렸음에도, 피고는 이 사건 장비가 납품된 2013. 8. 12.부터 당심 변론종결일 현재까지도 이 사건 공장에 공조시설을 설치하지 아니한 점, ⑦ 이 사건 해제 당시에는 이 사건 장비의 PVC PLATE에 육안으로 보이는 CRACK은 존재하지 아니하였고, 피고는 이 사건 본소 제기 이후인 2014. 2. 10.경 이 사건 장비의 PVC PLATE에 CRACK이 있음을 발견한 점, ⑧ 제1심 감정인 공소외 3은 이 사건 2014. 2. 10. 발견 CRACK의 발생 원인이 ‘PVC 물성에 의한 원고의 제작 하자’라고 감정하였으나, 감정인 공소외 3은 어떤 PVC 물성이 CRACK을 발생하게 하였는지에 관하여는 아무런 설명을 하지 아니하고 있고, 다만 겨울철 온도 변화에 따라 CRACK이 가속화되었다는 제1심 감정인의 감정결과에 의하면, ‘PVC 물성’이란 온도 변화에 따라 PVC가 변형되거나 CRACK이 발생되는 물성을 의미하는 것으로 보이며, 그러한 PVC 물성을 고려하여 이 사건 공장에 공조시설을 설치하기로 한 이상 PVC 물성이 피고의 PVC PLATE 제작 하자로 볼 수는 없는 점, ⑨ 앞서 본 바와 같이 원고의 PVC 용접결과에 대하여 피고가 이 사건 해제 당시까지 아무런 이의를 제기하지 아니한 이상, 제1심 감정인 공소외 3의 감정결과만으로는 원고의 용접작업이 불량하여 이 사건 장비의 PVC PLATE에 CRACK이 발생하였다고 볼 수 없는 점, ⑩ 피고가 2013. 8. 17. 발견한 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE의 CRACK의 발생원인은 별지 1. L6 ETCHER BODY CRACK 사고 보고서의 “6. 예상원인”란 기재와 같으나, 이 사건 장비의 PVC PLATE 용접작업 이후에 온도 변화 이외에는 달리 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE에 CRACK이 발생할 원인은 없어 보이므로(감정인 공소외 3의 감정결과에 의하더라도 이 사건 공장에 공조시설이 설치·가동되지 아니하여 CRACK 발생이 가속화되었다고 인정된다), 이 사건 2014. 2. 10. 발견 CRACK은 이 사건 공장에 공조시설이 설치·가동되지 아니하여 발생되었을 개연성이 높다고 보이는 점 등 제반사정에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 2014. 2. 10. 발견 CRACK은 피고가 이 사건 공장에 설치·가동하기로 한 공조시설을 설치·가동하지 아니하여 항온시설이 되지 아니한 이 사건 공장의 온도변화에 따라 발생되었다고 봄이 상당하고, 따라서 원고는 피고에게 이 사건 2014. 2. 10. 발견 CRACK에 관하여 그 책임이 없다고 할 것이다.

(C) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff: (a) installed the instant equipment as an independent mentor structure, not as a continuous mentor structure; (b) did not connect each unit structure with PVC solution, and did not design or manufacture to connect it with a good quality material, and thus, (c) discovered CACK on February 10, 2014.

The facts acknowledged earlier are as follows: ① the Defendant inspected the instant equipment manufactured at the Plaintiff’s factory on July 31, 2013; ② Nonindicted 5’s employee Nonindicted 2 week stay at the Plaintiff’s factory and inspected the instant equipment; and on August 17, 2013, the Defendant did not discover CCRK at the time of discovery of CCRCEK from the instant equipment PVPTE (the Defendant also did not find CCRK on August 12, 2013, on the premise that Non-Indicted 1’s testimony was not found at the time of interim inspection of the instant equipment, and Non-Indicted 1’s equipment was not connected to Non-Indicted 3’s equipment on the premise that Non-Indicted 1’s equipment was not connected to Non-Indicted 3’s equipment on the premise that Non-Indicted 3’s equipment was not connected to the design of the instant equipment on August 12, 2013 (see, e.g., the preparatory document on March 26, 2016).

D) Whether there exist defects such as lack of safety of the instant equipment

(1) The defendant's assertion

(A) In the instant equipment, there are defects of the instant PVCITRCE CCRK, as well as any defects of the instant PVCITRCEK, and thus, there may be leakage of fume, fume. Therefore, there is a defect of safety in the instant equipment (hereinafter “instant CCRK’s assertion of safety defect”).

(B) The Plaintiff: (a) designed and produced the instant equipment ETSK to be installed on the part of the equipment, or to be exposed to the SHFT, BEARING, FLWG, CABLE, etc.; (b) manufactured the unit part of the instant equipment to be installed outside the CHAFT so as not to be tightly sealed; (c) manufactured the sALING between the constituent parts of the instant equipment; and (d) manufactured a double pipe structure of the framework in the form of the instant equipment, and (d) made the double pipe structure in the form of the frame in which the DIVIVT part could be leaked and discharged into the fluence, so there is a lack of safety defects in the instant equipment (hereinafter “instant design defect assertion”).

(C) In addition, ① the parts of the instant equipment EXHAUST PTRT were designed in a non-displaceous manner, and there is a possibility of forming a scam. ② the parts designed to make the construction of GLASS of the instant equipment to be unequal; ③ the equipment was designed to make the CASE under the high sea ALIGN NE compulsory, and the equipment was manufactured so as to be easily cut off. ④ The parts of the instant equipment were manufactured so as to be easily cut off. ④ The parts of the instant equipment were < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17578, Apr. 2, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 20388, Feb. 29, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20100, Feb. 23, 2006>

(D) The equipment of this case, among the equipment of this case, is manufactured in a single unit of UP/DWN NAH applied to DIV UP/DBE, increased its manpower, and is expected to replace BALBH from CHABE inside CHNABE. It is anticipated that GCEBX was produced in a non-disscept PVC and its regular inspection was difficult. ETCHCHAB CHBCIN’s pipes pipes were integrated with CHABE form, not in the form of FLGE, and thus, it is difficult to repair and maintain the equipment of this case, such as cutting off the contact for repair and repair, because it is difficult to repair or check parts necessary for regular inspection (hereinafter “the defect of this case”).

(2) Determination

(A) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of safety defects

① As seen earlier, there was no defect in the instant PVC PEE CCRK at the time of the instant cancellation, and there was no responsibility for the Plaintiff with respect to the discovered CRACK on February 10, 2014 of the instant case, and thus, the instant equipment did not have any defect in the PVC PECE CCRK.

② 가사 이 사건 장비에 이 사건 PVC PLATE CRACK 하자가 있다고 하더라도, 앞서 인정한 사실, 앞서 든 각 증거, 갑 제61호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, ㉮ 유리식각 과정에는 식각 약액으로 불산을 사용하는데, ㉠ PVC는 자외선과 불산에 의하여 변화되지만, 산(산)에 의하여 슬러지(sludge)가 누적되면 PVC를 잘라 슬러지를 드러내고 PVC를 용접하여 붙이는 방법으로 사용하고, ㉡ 철(Fe)은 산에 견딜 수 없고, ㉢ 티타늄(Ti)은 산에 견디지만 가격이 지나치게 높아서, 일반적으로 유리식각 장비의 외관재는 산에 견디면서도 용이하게 보수할 수 있는 PVC를 사용하는 점, ㉯ 피고는 이 사건 도급계약 체결 전에도 유리식각 장비를 사용하여 유리를 식각한 업체인 점, ㉰ 피고는 유리식각 장비를 사용하면서 PVC PLATE에 CRACK이 발생하면 협력업체를 통하여 용접으로 CRACK을 보수하였던 점, ㉱ 피고가 작성한 별지 1. L6 ETCHER BODY CRACK 사고 보고서에 의하더라도 PVC PLATE에 발생된 CRACK을 용접으로 보수하도록 기재하고 있는 점, ㉲ 피고는 2013. 8. 17. PVC PLATE의 CRACK을 발견한 이후에도 원고로 하여금 이를 용접으로 보수하게 한 후 이 사건 장비의 반입, 설치(SET-UP) 작업을 하게 한 점, ㉳ 제1심 감정인 공소외 3의 감정결과에 의하더라도 용접으로 이 사건 2014. 2. 10. 발견 CRACK을 보수하지 못한다는 취지는 아닌 것으로 보이는 점, ㉴ 당심 감정인 공소외 4의 감정결과에 의하면 이 사건 2014. 2. 10. 발견 CRACK은 용접으로 보수가 가능하고 그 비용도 16,235,624원으로서 과다하지 아니한 점, ㉵ 그밖에 이 사건 2014. 2. 10. 발견 CRACK을 보수하는 것이 불가능하다거나 보수를 하더라도 이 사건 장비가 정상적으로 가동하기 어렵다고 볼만한 자료는 없는 점, ㉶ 피고도 디스플레이 검사장치 제조 판매 및 수출입업, 반도체 및 디스플레이 검사설비 제조 판매 및 수출입업 등을 그 목적으로 하는 회사인 점, ㉷ 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고의 이 사건 장비의 설치(SET-UP)작업에 대한 수령거절로 이 사건 장비의 시운전과 검수 등이 이루어지지 못하여 이 사건 장비의 가동에 따른 불산 용액 등의 누출 여부를 확인하지 못한 점 등 제반 사정에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 2014. 2. 10. 발견 CRACK을 용접으로 보수하더라도 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE로부터 불산 용액 및 불산 흄의 누출 가능성이 있다고 볼 수는 없으므로, 이 사건 2014. 2. 10. 발견 CRACK으로 이 사건 도급계약의 목적을 달성할 수 없을 정도의 안정성 결여의 하자가 있다고 볼 수 없다.

③ As to this, the Defendant asserted that the PVACEK exists in the instant equipment PVCE, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s testimony of Non-Indicted 1, as stated in No. 30, Eul’s evidence No. 37, and Non-Indicted 1’s witness of the first instance trial, exists in the instant equipment PVAET, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

나아가, 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE에 미세 CRACK이 존재한다고 하더라도, 앞서 인정한 사실 및 앞서 든 각 증거에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ㉠ 을 제30호증, 을 제37호증의 각 기재에 의하더라도 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE의 미세 CRACK으로부터 반드시 불산 흄 등이 누출된다는 의미는 아닌 것으로 보이는 점, ㉡ 피고도 2013. 8. 17. 발견된 PVC PLATE CRACK에 대하여 별지 1. L6 ETCHER BODY CRACK 사고 보고서를 작성하면서 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE의 미세 CRACK에 대한 대응책을 마련하거나 원고에게 그 대응책을 요구하지는 아니하였을 뿐 아니라, 원고가 위 CRACK에 관하여 용접작업을 마치자 피고 스스로 2013. 9. 4. 용접작업이 완료되었다는 일일업무일지(갑 제45호증)를 작성한 점, ㉢ 당심 감정인 공소외 4의 감정결과에 의하면 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE의 미세 CRACK으로부터 불산 흄이 누출되기 어렵다고 인정되는 점, ㉣ 유리식각 장비는 유리를 식각하는 ETCH 부분과 이를 씻어내는 RINSE 부분으로 구성되고, RINSE 부분으로 유리가 들어갔다가(LOAD) 나오게 되며(UNLOAD), ETCH 부분에서는 약액이 분사되어 유리가 식각되고 발생한 불산 흄은 탱크에 모아졌다가 필터링하여 약액을 재활용하기 위해 배관을 통해 다시 ETCH 부분으로 들어가는데, 배관은 ETCH 부분으로 다시 약액을 주입하기 위해 높은 압력이 존재하고, 높은 압력으로 ETCH 부분에 약액이 주입되면 ETCH 부분에서 정상적인 약액 분사가 어렵게 되므로 ETCH의 압력을 대기압 수준으로 유지시키기 위해 배기가스를 빼내는 EXHAUST 장치가 존재하며, 그 결과 CHAMBER 내부에서는 오히려 음압이 발생하여 내부가스가 CHAMBER 외부로 빠져 나오기가 어려운 점 등 제반사정에 비추어 보면, 을 제30호증의 기재 및 제1심 증인 공소외 1의 증언만으로는 이 사건 장비 PVC PLATE의 미세 CRACK으로부터 불산 흄이 누출된다고 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 결국 이유 없다.

(B) As to the assertion of the design manufacture defect of this case, the assertion of the performance defect of this case, and the assertion of the maintenance defect of this case

① According to the appraisal by Nonindicted 3 of the first instance trial, it is not recognized that there was any defect as to the instant equipment, as otherwise alleged in the performance defect. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the testimony by Nonindicted 1 of Nonindicted 1, as stated in the evidence No. 14 and the testimony by Nonindicted 1 of the first instance trial witness of the first instance trial, has the same defects as the instant equipment alleged in the performance defect. The Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

② Also, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the testimony of Non-Indicted 1 by Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 1 of the first instance trial witness has any defects such as the assertion of the design manufacture defects in the instant equipment and the assertion of the maintenance and repair defects in the instant equipment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them (In addition, according to the entries of Evidence No. 17-2 and Evidence No. 39, according to the Defendant’s instruction, the Plaintiff’s establishment of ETSNK upon the Defendant’s instruction, and the establishment of parts of DIGAL TYE is recognized). Even if such defects are found, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the purpose of the instant contract is not satisfied, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3) Determination as to the existence of grounds for revocation of the instant rescission

A) As to the grounds for revocation under Article 22(2)1 of the instant contract

(1) Article 22(2)1 of the instant contract provides that “Where the other party fails to comply with the terms of the instant contract,” it means the rescission of the instant contract due to the nonperformance of the contractual party, and thus, it seems that Article 544(3) of the Civil Act provides for the statutory rescission right under Article 544 of the Civil Act.

In order to cancel a contract on the ground of nonperformance under Article 544 of the Civil Act, the contract shall not be rescinded unless the obligation in question is deemed to have not been concluded by the obligee because it is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the contract, and if the purpose of the contract is not fulfilled, and it is merely an incidental obligation that is not performed by the obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da53705 delivered on November 25, 2005, etc.).

In distinguishing the principal and incidental obligations from the contractual obligations, regardless of the independent value of performance, the contract shall be determined by the reasonable intent of the parties expressed or clearly expressed in the situation at the time of signing the contract, and such various circumstances as the content, purpose, and the result of failure shall be considered (see Supreme Court Order 97Ma575, Apr. 7, 1997, etc.).

(2) Even if the Plaintiff was deemed to have failed to comply with the instant contract, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s act of manufacturing the instant equipment, contrary to the specifications of the instant estimate, did not perform the incidental obligation, according to the following circumstances, even if it was acknowledged that the Plaintiff had failed to perform the instant equipment, based on the specifications different from the specifications of the instant quotation, the Defendant cannot rescind the instant contract, and therefore, there is no ground for revocation under Article 22(2)1 of the instant contract.

(A) The contract of this case contains that the plaintiff manufactured the equipment of this case and passed the first inspection of the defendant, and the plaintiff installed the equipment of this case in the factory of this case and undergo the final inspection. On July 31, 2013, the defendant did not raise any objection against the specifications installed in the equipment of this case even though it can be easily confirmed whether the specifications installed in the equipment of this case are that of the estimate of this case, while conducting the production and inspection of the equipment of this case on July 31, 2013 (the defendant asserted that the equipment of this case was inspected mainly on the stability, but even according to its assertion, there was no problem about the safety of the equipment of this case since the defendant was delivered the equipment of this case, and the specifications of the parts installed in the equipment of this case were different from those of the estimate of this case.)

(B) Even according to the instant estimate, the parts of the instant equipment may be changed to any other specifications different from the specifications of the instant quotation. In addition, the Plaintiff added parts equivalent to KRW 25 items 487,225,700, which are not indicated in the instant quotation, to the parts of the instant equipment, and the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have been manufactured with any other specifications and specifications of the instant equipment based on the written estimate, since some parts of the instant equipment were not changed to the quantity and specifications of the instant equipment through several consultations or meetings on July 26, 2013, etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24445, May 23, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24685, Jun. 21, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24683, Jun. 27, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24747, Jul. 5, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24685, Aug. 5, 2013>

(C) On August 13, 2013, the Defendant confirmed various specifications, minutes, etc. concerning the instant equipment that the Plaintiff brought into Korea before the installation of the instant equipment (SET-UP) operation. After determining the conclusive design drawings as of August 16, 2013, the quantity of the parts installed in the instant equipment is identical to the quantity of the parts in accordance with the conclusive design drawings as of August 16, 2013 (the Defendant, on the face of No. 5, January 2014), asserting that he/she was aware of August 12, 2013 in the reply (as of November 12, 2014, 2014).

(D) With respect to the instant PECE product defect, ① the Defendant did not raise any objection to the Plaintiff even if he was aware of the existence of the instant PECEE defect in the process of manufacturing the instant equipment, and ② the Defendant, on August 13, 2013, on the date following the date when the instant equipment was imported, did not immediately raise any objection to the Plaintiff’s defect in the instant PEPEPE product, and ③ in light of the evidence No. 25, evidence No. 25, evidence No. 17, and evidence No. 33, each of the statements No. 16, No. 17, and No. 33, on the basis of the evidence No. 42, the Defendant did not deem that the quality of the PEPEPE product was significantly less than that of the PPEE product, and ④ the Defendant did not have any effect on the instant TPP product’s product safety disclosure on the instant TPP product defect on the ground that the instant PEPEV products product was not timely affected by the Defendant’s TPP product safety report.

(마) 이 사건 NOZZLE 하자에 관하여, ① 피고는 2013. 8. 29. 이 사건 장비에 이 사건 NOZZLE 하자가 있음을 알았음에도, 원고에게 이 사건 견적서에 기재된 SPRAY SYSTEM 제품을 사용하라고 한 것이 아니라 원고가 사용한 주원 제품이 아닌 ’◇◇◇◇◇◇◇‘ 또는 ’☆☆☆☆☆☆‘ 제품으로 NOZZLE 교체 여부를 검토해달라고 하였고, ② 피고는 2013. 8. 30. 원고로부터 ’◇◇◇◇◇◇◇와 주원 NOZZLE의 장비 특성을 비교한 자료 등 피고가 요구한 자료를 첨부하며 그 각 장단점을 비교하여 주원의 NOZZLE을 결정하였다‘는 이 사건 2013. 8. 30.자 답변을 받았고, 즉시 원고에게 이 사건 NOZZLE 하자에 대하여 아무런 이의를 제기하지 아니한 점, ③ 을 제8호증의 기재만으로는 이 사건 NOZZLE 하자가 이 사건 장비의 성능[NOZZLE을 통해 분사되는 약액의 양과 분사 범위를 변화시켜 식각되는 유리가 불량품이 되는 것 등]에 영향을 미친다고 볼 수 없다.

(F) Even if there is any defect in the instant SHFT, ① is deemed not to have been reflected in the instant estimate despite the change in the design of the SHFT prior to the preparation of the instant quotation, as seen earlier, and ② the Defendant, on August 13, 2013, knew on the existence of the instant equipment, inspected the quantity of the instant equipment, and did not immediately raise any objection against the Plaintiff even though he knows that there was any defect in the instant SHFT, and ③ the statement in the evidence No. 8 alone does not affect the performance or safety of the instant equipment.

B) As to the grounds for revocation under Article 22(2)2 of the instant contract

(1) As seen earlier, although the instant equipment was manufactured as a part different from the specifications of the instant quotation, it does not affect the performance, safety, etc. of the instant equipment, and it is possible to repair the instant equipment on adjoining land even if there is any defect in the instant PVCE CCRK.

(2) Therefore, even if the instant equipment was manufactured as a component different from the specifications of the instant quotation, and there is any defect in the instant PVC PEE CCRK, it is deemed impossible or likely to achieve the purpose of the instant contract. Therefore, there is no ground for rescission under Article 22(2)2 of the instant contract on the instant equipment.

C) As to the grounds for revocation under Article 22(1)5 of the instant contract

(1) If there is a defect in the object completed in a contract for work, the contractor may claim damages in lieu of the repair of the defect or the repair of the defect. However, if the defect is not important and excessive expenses are needed at the same time, the contractor may not claim damages in lieu of the repair of the defect or the repair of the defect, and may claim compensation only for damages caused by the defect. In such a case, unless there are special circumstances, the ordinary damages caused by the defect shall be the difference between the exchange value of the object and the present state of the defect if the contractor executes the work without the defect and the exchange value of the defect. Therefore, if it is impossible to calculate the difference in exchange value, it is reasonable to deem that the ordinary damages caused by the difference in exchange value are the difference in the construction cost and the construction cost in the state of the defect (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da54376, Mar. 13, 1998, etc.).

(2) 앞서 인정한 사실, 앞서 든 각 증거, 갑 제24호증, 갑 제53호증, 을 제6호증의 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고는 이 사건 견적서에 기재되어 있지 아니한 25개 항목 487,225,700원 상당의 부품을 추가로 사용하고(피고는 원고가 설치한 위 부품이 이 사건 장비의 제작·설치에 있어서 불필요한 부품이라고 주장하지 아니한다), 피고와의 회의 및 협의를 통하여 일부 부품은 이 사건 견적서와 다른 사양 내지 수량을 사용하여 이 사건 장비를 제작한 점, ② 이 사건 장비에 설치된 부품의 수량은 피고가 확정한 이 사건 2013. 8. 16.자 확정 설계도면에 기재된 부품의 수량과 일치하는데, 이 사건 견적서의 사양대로 제작하면 이 사건 2013. 8. 16.자 확정 설계도면에 기재된 부품의 수량과 달라지게 되어 그에 따라 이 사건 장비의 다른 부품도 다시 설치하여야 하는 점, ③ 이 사건 PVC PLATE 제품 하자, 이 사건 NOZZLE 하자 및 이 사건 SHAFT 하자를 이 사건 견적서의 사양에 맞도록 이 사건 장비를 제작한다 하더라도 이 사건 2013. 8. 16.자 확정 설계도면에 기재된 수량과 달라져 결국 이 사건 장비를 다시 제작하여야 할 것으로 보이는 점[피고도 이 사건 장비에 설치된 일흥 제품 PVC PLATE를 제거하고 이 사건 견적서에 기재된 ▽▽▽ 제품 PVC PLATE와 수량으로 이 사건 장비를 설치하는 것은 사실상 불가능하다고 한다(2014. 6. 25.자 준비서면 제5면 참조)] 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 견적서의 사양대로 이 사건 장비를 제작하거나 또는 이 사건 PVC PLATE 제품 하자 및 이 사건 NOZZLE 하자 및 이 사건 SHAFT 하자를 보수함에 있어서 이 사건 장비를 다시 제작하여야 할 정도의 과다한 비용이 든다고 보이고[① 이 사건 견적서 기재 ㉠ PVC PLATE 사양의 가액은 234,870,000원, ㉡ NOZZLE 사양의 가액은 62,496,000원 합계 297,366,000원이고, 이 사건 장비에 설치된 ㉠ PVC PLATE 사양의 가액은 136,880,000원, ㉡ NOZZLE 사양의 가액은 35,270,400원 합계 172,150,400원으로서 그 차액은 125,215,600원이 되고{가사 이 사건 SHAFT 하자를 이 사건 장비의 하자로 보더라도 전체 차액은 165,235,600원(피고의 2015. 3. 26.자 준비서면 제2면 참조)이다}, ② 이 사건 견적서에 따른 사양과 이 사건 장비에 설치된 사양의 부품의 전체 가액 차액은 219,251,393원이다], 반면 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 장비가 이 사건 견적서의 사양과 달리 제작되었다 하더라도 이는 이 사건 장비의 성능이나 안전성에 영향을 미치는 중요한 하자가 아니므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 차액 상당의 손해배상 등의 청구는 별론으로 하고 이 사건 견적서의 사양대로 이 사건 장비를 제작하는 내용의 보수를 청구할 수 없다 할 것이다(또한 ① 이 사건 2013. 8. 16.자 확정 설계도면에 의하면 이 사건 장비는 사실상 이 사건 PVC PLATE 제품 하자와 이 사건 NOZZLE 하자 중 각 "MAKER" 하자만 있고, ② 이 사건 장비의 제작과정, 검수과정 및 납품과정에서 쉽게 위 하자를 발견할 수 있었거나 확인하였음에도, 피고가 원고에 대하여 이 사건 장비의 예정 설치(SET-UP)작업 완료 1주일 전에 이 사건 견적서대로의 사양으로 이 사건 장비 전체를 보수하라고 하면서 이 사건 도급계약의 이행을 요구하는 행위는 그 권리의 행사가 신의칙에 반한다고 볼 여지도 없지 않다).

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not comply with the claim for repair of the content of manufacturing the instant equipment according to the specifications of the Defendant’s written estimate, this does not constitute grounds for revocation under Article 22(1)5 of the instant contract.

In addition, as seen earlier, the Defendant received the instant equipment from the Plaintiff on July 31, 2013 after manufacturing and inspecting the instant equipment, and around August 12, 2013, he/she paid the instant equipment directly or through a third party pursuant to Article 12(5) and (6) of the instant contract, and filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the cost of repair. As such, even if the Plaintiff failed to perform the Defendant’s above claim for repair, it cannot be deemed as falling under the grounds for revocation under Article 22(1)5 of the instant contract.

(3) Meanwhile, the Defendant did not file a claim for repair with the Plaintiff by February 10, 2014 at the time of the instant rescission, and on the other hand, on February 10, 2014, the discovered CCRK is able to repair (the purport of the instant CCRK is that, even if it is stated in the evidence No. 30, it is possible to repair) and on February 10, 2014, it cannot be deemed that there was a defect in safety to the extent that the instant equipment could not achieve the purpose of the instant contract. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a defect in safety failure to the extent that the instant equipment could not achieve the purpose of the instant contract. Accordingly, the mere fact that CCRK was discovered on February 10, 2014 in the instant equipment, there is no ground to rescind Article 22(1)5 of the instant contract.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the cancellation of the contract of this case and the cancellation of the contract of this case by the delivery of the counterclaim of this case are lawful, and the prior defendant's assertion is without merit on different premise.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,464,00,000 won [1,760,000,000 won (1,60,000 won of value-added tax + 160,000,000 won of value-added tax] + 704,000,000 won (640,0000 + value-added tax + 64,000,000 won of value-added tax + 64,000), and among them, 1,60,000,000,000 won from August 27, 2013; 640,000,000,000,000 from the date of payment to the date of payment; 35% of the statutory interest rate of Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25135, Jan. 1, 2014).

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The defendant asserts that since the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the rescission of this case or by the delivery of the counterclaim of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to return to the defendant the advance payment of KRW 1,056,000,000 paid to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 23 (1) of the contract of this case.

B. As seen earlier, the cancellation of the contract of this case and the cancellation of the contract of this case by the delivery of the counterclaim of this case are unlawful and invalid, and thus, the defendant's above assertion on the premise of this is without any need to further examine it.

4. Conclusion

Thus, 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, and the defendant's counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Since the part against the plaintiff as to the main lawsuit of the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, part of the judgment against the plaintiff is accepted, and it is thus revoked, and the payment of the above recognized amount is ordered against the defendant. The remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit, and the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, and it is thus revoked and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed

5. Determination as to the plaintiff's application for return of provisional payment

A. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, such as the statement in the deposit document attached to the Plaintiff’s application for return of provisional payment on December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,338,835,359 ( KRW 1,056,000 + KRW 282,835,359) with the Defendant as the principal and interest as the principal of a deposit on April 29, 2015 by a provisional execution order of the amount that the Plaintiff ordered performance on a counterclaim claim of the judgment of the first instance court. It is recognized that the Defendant received the total amount of the deposit on April 29, 2015.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s counterclaim claim of this case is without merit, and this court accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal and revoked the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, the declaration of provisional execution of the judgment of the court of first instance becomes void by the declaration of this judgment.

On the other hand, deposit based on the judgment of the provisional execution sentence is not a deposit for the original repayment, which is not a deposit for the final repayment, but a condition to cancel the declaration of provisional execution or the cancellation of the judgment on the merits in the appellate court. Thus, even if the depositor deposits the amount of judgment after the judgment of the provisional execution sentence was rendered, unless the deposited person receives the deposit, the deposit itself cannot be deemed a payment due to the declaration of provisional execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17847, Sept. 29, 201).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,338,835,359 won with the return of the provisional payment and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 29, 2015 to September 8, 2017, which is the date of the final judgment from September 29, 2015, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

C. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the return of the provisional payment of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Song Jin-do (Presiding Judge)

1) If performance of an obligation of one of the parties to a bilateral contract becomes impossible due to any cause for which the obligee is responsible, the obligor may demand performance of the other party. The same shall apply where performance becomes impossible due to any cause for which neither of the parties is responsible in the case of the obligee’s delay in receipt.

2) Of the obligees under Article 401 of the Civil Act, the obligor is not wholly liable for nonperformance unless he acted intentionally or with gross negligence.

3) If one of the parties has failed to perform an obligation under Article 544 (Performance Delay and Rescission) of the Civil Act, the other party shall demand such performance with a reasonable time fixed and may rescind the contract if the obligor has expressed in advance his intention of non-performance within that time limit. However, a peremptory notice is not required if the obligor has expressed in advance its intention