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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a merchant who repairs and sells dental machines under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who tried to open a dental hospital in China.

B. On April 15, 2012, the Plaintiff received down payment of KRW 2 million from the Defendant, and delivered dental equipment, such as nitine, to the place (D’s place of business) designated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant product”).

C. D (delivery) the Defendant entered into a delivery contract for the instant goods with D.

A. On April 2012, 2012, the Defendant sent the instant goods to China. However, on the wind where the instant goods are seized, the Defendant was unable to receive the instant goods from China on the ground that the declaration on the reduction of the details of the goods in relation to taxes was discovered by the Chinese customs office.

Meanwhile, the Defendant paid the remainder of KRW 9,872,200 to the Plaintiff by May 20, 2012, but did not pay the remainder to the Plaintiff up to the day.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including the provisional lot number list), and the purport of the 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 damages for delay at each rate of KRW 9,872,200, and KRW 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 21, 2012 to July 24, 2014, which is clear that the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from May 21, 2012, and KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that, as the Plaintiff did not receive the instant goods in reality in China, it did not have an obligation to pay the remainder.

The following circumstances are examined, i.e., ① the Plaintiff normally delivered the instant equipment to the place designated by the Defendant, and ② the dispatch of the instant equipment to China is concluded between the Defendant and D.