2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

3. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) remove 7,00mms x 4,500mms x 3,500mms x one book-keeping of 3,500mms , installed on the ground of 2,035С of land for a factory in Chungcheongnam-gun (detailed address omitted);

(b) Payment of 2,00,000 won and 20% interest per annum from August 13, 2005 to the full payment date.

4. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

5. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

The principal lawsuit: The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter only the Defendant) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the Plaintiff) 13,100,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

Counterclaim: As set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Disposition (the defendant raised a counterclaim in the first instance).

2. Purport of appeal

It is as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Decree.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells products related to automobile maintenance, and the Defendant is a person who operates a steel structure manufacturer with the trade name of high atmosphere.

B. On January 6, 2004, the Plaintiff established one Dobook on the part of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Dobook”) on the Dobook No. 3’s (hereinafter referred to as the “Dobook”) factory in Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Defendant’s place of business, and received the down payment of KRW 13,750,00 (including value-added tax) as the sum of the remainder KRW 11,750,000, and the down payment of KRW 11,750,000 (including value-added tax). If the Plaintiff violated the above contract, the Plaintiff refunded the down payment received from the Defendant and the interest added to the deposit in commercial banks. If the Defendant violated the contract, the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with the content that the said down payment should be acquired as penalty, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 2,000,000 as the down payment on the same day.

C. On January 2004, the Plaintiff set up a book of this case at the Defendant’s management workplace.

D. In order to operate the instant Dobook, a report on air emission facilities under the Clean Air Conservation Act must be filed, and in order to file a report on air emission facilities, the Do Bookbook of this case requires the specifications of the instant Do Bookbook, and the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000,000, when it was discovered that the Do Bookbook of this case was operated on March 25, 2004 without the said report and the Defendant was discovered while operating the Do Book on March 25, 2004, and was issued an order of suspension of use from Jin-gun-gun, and from

E. On April 22, 2004, the Defendant sent content-certified mail to the Plaintiff and urged the Plaintiff to deliver documents necessary for filing a report on air emission facilities, such as the instant Dobook’s specifications. On May 4, 2004, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit the said documents by sending content-certified mail again to the Plaintiff. On May 4, 2004, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant contract would be rescinded if the said documents are not delivered within two weeks, and each of the above mail reached the Plaintiff immediately thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff as the cause of the claim of this case: ① The defendant does not pay any balance of 11,750,000 won for the Do book Do book Do book Do; ② At the time of entering into the contract of this case, the defendant needs to increase sales in order to obtain bank loans to the plaintiff; ② the price of the Do book Do book Do is more than 12,50,000 won (excluding value-added tax), which is more than 25,00,000 won (excluding value-added tax), and if the tax invoice is issued, the value-added tax amount of 1,250,000 won (excluding value-added tax) which the plaintiff has to pay additionally to the plaintiff; ② the defendant would issue a tax invoice as requested by the defendant; ② the above value-added tax 1,250,000 won + the above 00 won + the defendant would not pay any additional amount of 000 won; ③ the defendant would not pay any balance of 000 won.

B. Determination

First of all, the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded due to the Plaintiff's non-performance of obligation, as acknowledged in the following. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff's claim premised on the validity of the contract is without merit without further review.

Next, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant provided the same promise, or that the Defendant submitted tax invoices with the price of KRW 25,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) to the tax office and additionally paid the value-added tax amount of KRW 1,250,000,00 for the portion of the claim for the value-added tax which was paid late, on the sole basis of the statement of evidence Nos. 2 and 2 with respect to the portion of the claim for the value-added tax, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise,

Finally, there is no dispute between the parties as to the part of the price claim for light light, and the fact that the plaintiff has installed two light light light in the defendant factory (However, the defendant asserts that in the process of establishing the book of this case, the plaintiff's employee was damaged by the defendant's light and run away by the plaintiff) and there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff's employee was paid a sum of KRW 100,000 with the price for light light above. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. Determination on a counterclaim

A. Whether the plaintiff did not perform his duty

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not deliver the above air emission facility report on the Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's Do Governor's

Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff’s obligations under the instant contract include the delivery of documents necessary for the report of air emission facilities, in addition to the installation of books, as long as it is required to operate the instant Doc book, the Plaintiff’s obligations under the instant contract include the delivery of documents necessary for the report of air emission facilities. Considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to the results of the entry of evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, 11, 10, 11, and 10-2, and 11, and the fact inquiry into the gold Environment Co., Ltd. of the court of the trial as to the above Doc book, the drawing indicating the size of the Doc book book book and the source of the document are necessary to report the above Doc book to the Defendant regardless of the name of the document, such as the Doc book and design drawing, and there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s prior knowledge that the Plaintiff had sent the Do book book to the Defendant, and the size of the books indicated on the 2nd 4th Doc book cannot be found to coincide with the above content of the document.

B. Rescission of the instant contract and occurrence of duty to restore

Furthermore, the defendant's peremptory notice again to perform the above document delivery obligation within a reasonable period on May 4, 2004 is as seen above. Since the contract of this case was cancelled and the counterclaim of this case containing an expression of intent to request the removal of the book of this case and the return of the down payment was delivered to the plaintiff on August 24, 2004, the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded on August 24, 2004 (the defendant asserted that the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded on August 4, 2004 (the above content-proof mail is merely the content that the defendant would cancel the contract if the plaintiff fails to perform within 2 weeks, and it cannot be deemed that the contract was automatically cancelled at the expiration of the above period, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's obligation to return the down payment at the rate of 20% following the decision 200 days following the 20th day after the decision of this case was delivered to the defendant as the duty to return the down payment and the duty to return the down payment at the rate of 20.7 days after the decision 200 days following the above.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for counterclaim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so revoked, and the plaintiff's claim for counterclaim raised in the trial is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.

Judges Kim Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)