1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The scope of the judgment in the first instance court claimed payment of KRW 12,810,00 for the painting of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “C”) and for KRW 10,169,00 for the remaining painting other than the instant cranes, and KRW 22,979,00 for the remainder of the painting, and the court of first instance dismissed the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the price for painting, and rendered a judgment citing the remainder of the claim.

Since only the plaintiff appealed against this, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the portion of the claim for painting payment with respect to the artist of this case.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells machinery, records, etc. with the trade name of “D”. The Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells machinery, records, etc.

B. Around October 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) carried out the seal work on the instant scrap to be supplied to C by the Defendant; and (b) the price is KRW 12,810,000 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is liable to pay the price for painting to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff did not receive the price of KRW 12,810,000,000 for painting work of this case.

It was true that the Plaintiff carried out the painting work for the Defendant, but the Defendant suffered damages from requesting re-work from the ordering agent C due to the defects in the painting work and paying the Plaintiff’s seal price or more at the cost.

Accordingly, the Defendant, around April 2016, agreed with the Plaintiff to deduct the seal payment from the above damages, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the seal payment.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the exemption of the fixed seal price.

In the examination, evidence Nos. 3 and Nos. 2 through 7 are recognized by the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.