1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the production of wood-type and dredging pumps, etc. with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a company engaged in the extraction and dredging of aggregate.

B. On February 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods with the content that the following materials, which are components of dredging pumps 1 set forth below, shall be supplied to the Defendant within 76,50,000 won and 60 days from the date of the delivery order (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

다. 원고는 피고에게 2017. 6. 24. 위 제품을 모두 납품하고, 이후 2017. 11. 28. 임팰러 1개를 납품하였으며, 한편 피고는 계약 당일인 2017. 2. 16. 원고에게 계약금의 30%인 25,245,000원을, 2017. 8. 16. 11,000,000원을, 2017. 11. 15. 15,000,000원을, 2017. 12. 26. 32,905,000원을 지급하여 합계 84,150,000원을 지급하였다.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 3, 11, 12, Eul 1's each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a drawing with the Defendant’s consent after receiving a request for dredging pumps production from the Defendant; and (b) completed the processing process in accordance with the above drawing; and (c) completed the preparation for delivery; (d) on May 10, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to revise the size of the felber and the fater on the ground that the shower, which is a machine combining the above materials, was modified; and (e) processed only the parts that can be corrected, and supplied the materials on June 24, 2017.

However, due to the replacement of the shower on the part of the defendant, the propeller supplied by the plaintiff could not be installed because the replacement of the defendant does not comply with the shower and its size. Accordingly, the defendant requested the new production of the propeller in line with the shower replaced on July 2017, and the price for the new production was paid in a separate manner.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff newly produced a propeller and finally supplied it on November 28, 2017, and the Defendant followed the rectification of showers to the Plaintiff.