1. Of the lower judgment, regarding the Plaintiff’s KRW 101,024,00 and KRW 28,875,000, among the lower judgment, regarding the Defendant’s KRW 101,00,000.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

원심은 그 판시와 같은 이유로, 피고가 이 사건 계약에 정하여진 성능을 갖춘 펠렛성형기 세트를 공급함으로써 이 사건 계약에서 정한 일을 완성하였다고 볼 수 없고, 이 사건 계약은 피고의 이행지체 및 이행거절을 원인으로 한 원고의 해제 의사표시가 피고에게 송달됨으로써 해제되었다고 할 것이므로, 피고는 원고에게 이 사건 계약의 해제에 따른 원상회복으로 이미 지급받은 계약금 및 중도금 합계 101,024,000원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다고 판단하였다.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the relevant legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof as to completion of work

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Act”) provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation before a fact-finding ruling declaring that the obligor has the obligation to perform the obligation is rendered, paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable extent.”

In this context, the "case where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist on the existence or scope of the obligation" refers to the case where the obligor's assertion in a dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation is deemed reasonable.

A debtor;