2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who maintains construction machinery vehicles and sells goods under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who contracts construction machinery and sells construction machinery under a trade name of “D” and is engaged in trade in Mongolia from February 2013.

B. On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff completed repair works with heavy equipment, such as pumps, which was entrusted by the Defendant, but did not receive a total of KRW 12,776,400.

C. On May 2014, the Plaintiff purchased heavy equipment parts from the Defendant and sent them to Mongolia, and around May 13, 2014, sent heavy equipment parts to Mongolia.

On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a detailed statement of transaction amounting to 540,000, but failed to receive the price of the goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, entry of Eul evidence of Nos. 5 to 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 13,136,400 and delay damages for the repair cost of heavy equipment and goods, unless there are special circumstances.

B. On February 12, 2012, the Defendant asserts that, as the repair cost portion among the details of repair cost on February 12, 2012, the repair cost portion was not actually repaired or used for used parts, the repair cost corresponding to this portion should be excluded or re-settlemented. However, the entries in the evidence Nos. 10 and 12 in the evidence Nos. 10 and 12 alone are insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading No. 16 evidence No. 16, it is recognized that the Plaintiff purchased new equipment parts to repair the Defendant’s pumps, etc. on February 2, 2012. 2) The Defendant’s purchase price for the goods as of May 14, 2014, which was claimed by the Plaintiff, is “E” a company (hereinafter referred to as “E”).