1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the third party decision of the court of first instance referred to in Article 11 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”) is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the fact that the court raises “the plaintiff” as “the defendant

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay intermediate payments after the completion of the installation (supply) of the instant equipment and equipment and pay any balance at the end of two months thereafter, and the completion of the installation (supply) means the time when the test operation of the Dozra is completed. The fact that the Dozra completed the trial operation around March 10, 2014 is the person who is also the Defendant, and as seen earlier, the minutes of this case drawn up around May 30, 2015 are not only various defects or deficiencies which are premised on the trial operation, but also various defects or deficiencies which are premised on the trial operation, and the consultation has been progress with the Defendant on May 30, 205. In light of the fact that the date of delay is written on April 25, 2014 by itself, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff had also been running the Dozra on April 25, 2014.

If so, the Defendant shall pay the intermediate payment of KRW 221,100,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on April 25, 2014, the supply of machinery was completed, and the Defendant shall pay the intermediate payment of KRW 221,10,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on March 24, 2014, the previous

4. Since the Defendant paid KRW 50,000,000 each to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 221,10,000 on April 25, 2014 (=21,100,000-30,000-50,000), which is two months thereafter, to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The fact that the trial run was conducted after January 20, 2014 and March 10, 2014, the original delivery term of the part of the damages for delay, which is one (1) annual gold, is as seen earlier, but there is no dispute or all of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 5, and evidence No. 6 and arguments.