1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 26,726,00 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 7, 2015 to October 21, 2015.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff suffered from mental suffering due to the Defendants’ failure to perform their contractual duties (development and supply of an automatic reception terminal). As such, the Defendants jointly have a duty to compensate the Plaintiff for property damage amounting to KRW 26,726,00 in total, KRW 10,000, KRW 26,726,000.

B. Although the failure of the development of the product claimed by the Defendants is inconsistent with that of the Plaintiff, the process is attributable to the Plaintiff, and thus, it is unreasonable to hold the Defendant liable for all of the responsibility.

Since the defendant has invested considerable effort and cost to perform the contract, it is desired to perform the contract in consultation with the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 28 (including paper numbers).

1) On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) on July 2, 2013, in order to develop and manufacture the automatic reception terminal for the supply of public institutions; (b) the Defendants (the Defendants, as married couple, operate an electronic device manufacturer and wholesaler in the trade name of “C” after completing business registration under Defendant A); and (c) the “contract for the supply of goods and the development of equipment” (a total amount of KRW 16.5 million; hereinafter “instant development agreement”).

After the conclusion of the contract, from July 2, 2013 to August 28, 2014, the Defendants paid KRW 12,726,000 in total as the price for supply by means of remitting the products to the financial account of Defendant B, etc. However, the Defendants failed to complete the development and manufacture of the products by the deadline stipulated in the contract (the development and manufacture by October 2, 2013, and the completion of correction by October 17, 2013), and even after the Plaintiff’s delay over several occasions, they did not develop and manufacture the products stipulated in the contract and deliver them to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of its intent to cancel the instant development contract on the grounds of nonperformance of obligation on November 24, 2014, while the Plaintiff also notified the Defendants.