2...

A. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant, who runs a yacht and the business of repairing yachts, to repair the instant engine installed in the motor boat owned by the Plaintiff; and (b) agreed to determine the repair cost, once the Defendant, once delivered the instant engine, thereby identifying the cause of breakdown.

B. On May 9, 2017, the Defendant: (a) laid off and dismantled the instant engine from the motor boat, presented to the Plaintiff KRW 3,699,300 (including value-added tax) as the repair cost; but (b) the Plaintiff did not reject and repair the said amount.

C. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to assemble and deliver the instant engine in its original condition, and the Defendant refused to deliver the engine with the payment of KRW 500,000 as the cost of disassembly and assembling the engine and the cost of labeling the engine (hereinafter “degradation cost”).

At present, the engine of this case is currently kept by the defendant in a dissipated state.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim and the defense

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim ① Delivery of the instant engine and ② (on the premise that the Plaintiff’s failure to use the instant engine may cause damage to KRW 100,00,00 of vessel mooring costs and KRW 100,000 of vessel depreciation costs each month) from May 8, 2017 to October 7, 2017, the Plaintiff sought payment of the total amount of KRW 3,400,000 [=10,000 + KRW 17 months] and its delay damages for the said period from October 9, 2018 to the above delivery date, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any obligation to deliver the instant engine during the said period to the Plaintiff’s defense, and the Defendant did not have any obligation to deliver the said engine between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s defenses.