A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who engages in the manufacturing business of automobile parts, etc. under the trade name of D, and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who engages in the manufacturing business of machinery with the trade name of E.

B. On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the middle and high-class weathering machine (Standard 550/250) (hereinafter “instant machine”) to KRW 17 million (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”). The main contents are as follows.

The name of goods under the contract of this case Article 1 (1) of the Contract: The quantity of goods under the contract of this case: One specifications: 50/250 (frequency 2): the payment period: Within June 23, 2018. The date of completion of the TRY-OUT shall be the date of entry.

Article 3 (Method of Price Payment) 1: The remainder amount of KRW 7,000,000: The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 10,000,000 as the remainder after the Defendant completely performed this contract.

Supply shall be made after the completion of on-site driving.

The defendant shall be paid in June 23, 2018 to the defendant.

Article 4 (Place of Supply and Transportation Costs) 1 Supply shall be made to D at the places designated by the Plaintiff.

C. On June 5, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 7 million to the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff on June 23, 2018, which is the date of payment stipulated in the instant contract, and thereafter requested the Plaintiff to deliver the instant machinery several times from September 18, 2018, which was after the Plaintiff and the Defendant had been engaged in the work of attaching pressures to the instant machinery under consultation with the Defendant. However, the Defendant rejected the delivery of the instant machinery several times by asserting that the Plaintiff cannot deliver the instant machinery before receiving the remainder payment from the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking delivery, etc. of the instant machine against the Defendant, but the Defendant repeated the said assertion even during the instant lawsuit.

E. The Defendant’s delay of the delivery of the instant machinery.