채무부존재확인
1. “Standards for bricks and block production machinery” concluded on October 22, 2014 between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff):
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased 40,000,000 won, without repairing, repairing, or painting, one of the bricks and block production machinery (a size: 21 strehings every time; hereinafter “instant machinery”) from Korea-based machinery Co., Ltd., via the Defendant, via the Defendant.
On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff set the contract amount of KRW 15,00,000 (value-added tax separately) by setting up the Defendant and the instant machinery at the Plaintiff’s place of business (Seongbuk-gun, one parcel outside B), and setting up various parts, etc. required for the installation and trial operation of the instant machinery at the Plaintiff’s place of business.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 9,00,000,000 in total, on December 29, 2014, on the pretext of the installation cost of the instant machinery, and KRW 9,00,000,000 in total.
The Defendant failed to complete the installation of the instant machinery by March 26, 2015, and the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to complete the installation of the instant machinery by March 26, 2015, and notified the Defendant of the completion thereof by April 5, 2015. The Defendant notified the Defendant that he would cancel the instant contract on April 13, 2015, and the Defendant received it on or around April 21, 2015.
At the time of appraisal on May 11, 2016, the installation condition of the instant machinery was ① constructed with concrete only up to 50% of the total floor area on which the instant machinery was installed; the floor constructed with concrete was installed only with poppy studs. When the installation of the instant machinery was difficult due to two hydrotensions equipment installed under the floor surface of the instant machinery, the Plaintiff was performing construction works to cut the floor after the floor civil engineering works; the installation of the instant machinery was suspended (the part of civil engineering works) while the Defendant removed the existing hydrotensionr equipment and prepared to replace the said equipment with the electric mortar (the part of civil engineering works).