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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. Basic facts 1) If the Plaintiff and the Defendant supplied the original body to the Plaintiff on February 2017, 2017, the Plaintiff’s sealed it and the Defendant’s 1,680 Titts to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant products”).

(1) The contract under which the Defendant is obligated to deliver and pay the cost of processing the contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) Around March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied Titts 1,680 processed under the above contract to the Defendant.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

B. The plaintiff's assertion and the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion that since the plaintiff set the processing costs per Titrts 6,100 won per Titrts, the defendant is obligated to pay 11,272,80 won, including value added tax, and delay damages to the plaintiff.

However, since there is no evidence to prove that the unit price display among the evidence No. 3, it can not be used as evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, among the above amounts claimed by the Plaintiff, only KRW 3,800 recognized by the Defendant is recognized as a unit price for processing costs.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the cost of processing 7,022,40 won (=3,800 won x 1,680 x 1,680 x 1.1, and additional tax) and damages for delay on the part of the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of set-off

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant entered into a subcontract to implement the supply contract concluded with C (hereinafter “C”) and set the payment period as March 14, 2017. The Plaintiff supplied the instant contract to E-factory operated by D around March 23, 2017, when the said payment period expired.

However, the defendant paid KRW 3,960,000 as the first revised work cost and KRW 11,02,00 as the second revised work cost to correct defects in the supplied product.

Therefore, it is therefore.