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 argument that the defendant cited the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance by this court is different from the argument in the court of first instance. Thus, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the evidence added in this court are integrated

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and as seen in Paragraph 2, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the arguments emphasized by the defendant in this court and the judgment thereof, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(다만 약칭은 제1심판결의 약칭을 그대로 따른다). ▣ 제1심판결문 3쪽 위에서 14~16줄을 아래와 같이 고쳐 쓴다.

D. As the Plaintiff failed to deliver a part of the goods by the delivery date of each of the instant contracts, the Defendant terminated each of the instant contracts on February 23, 2018 pursuant to the grounds for termination of the contract and expressed the Plaintiff’s intent to revert the contract deposit to the Defendant pursuant to Article 1.22.1(5) of the General Conditions of the Contracts, and such declaration of intent reached the Plaintiff around that time.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion at this court

A. 1) The Act on Contracts to Which the State of the Defendant’s argument is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”) asserting that the contract performance guarantee is a penalty for breach of contract (the penalty for breach of contract or penalty)

The main sentence of Article 12(3) provides that "the head of each central government agency or the public official in charge of contracts shall revert the relevant contract bond to the National Treasury if the other party to the contract fails to fulfill any contractual obligation," and the defendant concluded each of the contracts with the plaintiff based on the State Contracts Act

In light of this, the contract performance guarantee stipulated in each contract of this case is not presumed to be liquidated damages, but indirectly compelling the plaintiff's performance of the contract, which is the supplier, and in the case of the plaintiff's breach of contract, it is the defendant.