A. On February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the following content:

1) Amounting to KRW 8,800,000 (including value-added tax) 2) 3/100 per day for liquidated damages on March 3, 2013 on the date on which the payment period is completed.

B. From March 13, 2013 to May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,860,000 to the Defendant.

다. 피고는 2013. 12. 20.경 원고에게 식기세척기를 납품하였지만 식기세척기에 하자(세척펌프 고정볼트 누락, 그리스텝 미설치, 퇴수 PVC관 반대 시공 등)가 발견되었다.

Although the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to repair defects on several occasions, the Defendant did not repair all defects.

(D) The court did not repair the Defendant at the date of the instant pleading, even though it had the opportunity to repair the defect.

For the foregoing reasons, on March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to rescind the instant contract at the complaint, and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A Nos. 1 through 22, Evidence B Nos. 8, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant contract was lawfully rescinded.

As such, the defendant is liable for restitution to the plaintiff and damages.

Reinstatement: 11,860,000 won paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant: 15,936,000 won for liquidated damages (=8,000,000 won x 3/1000 x 664 days).

Since an agreement on compensation for delay is scheduled for the amount of damages for delay in the completion of work by the contractor, the court may reduce the amount of the damages appropriately if it is deemed unduly excessive pursuant to the provisions of Article 398(2) of the Civil Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da34043, Oct. 11, 2012). A court’s estimated amount of damages is unreasonable.

for reduction, the economy of the creditor and the debtor.