1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a business operator who engages in interior fishery in the trade name of "D," and the defendant is a business operator who engages in reinforced materials manufacturing and selling business in the trade name of "E."

Around December 2009, the Plaintiff entered the new frame provided by the Defendant to the Defendant at the time, and entered into a supply contract for reinforcement materials with KRW 10,906,250 (hereinafter “instant contract”) to be supplied with KRW 4,300,00,00 for the Defendant at the time of the new frame provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant reinforcement materials”).

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 10,90,000,000 on December 3, 2009 under the instant contract, and KRW 10,900,000 on January 7, 2010.

On January 6, 2010, the defendant supplied 936 reinforcements to the plaintiff.

[Ground] The plaintiff's assertion that Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 10 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings was not supplied to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not deliver reinforcements under the contract of this case on the ground of the defendant's non-performance of obligation, and the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the contract of this case and the return of 10,900,000 won and delay damages.

The Plaintiff, due to the Defendant’s defective reinforcement, rescinded a double text construction contract with F. As a result, paid F a penalty of KRW 14,00,000 to F. The Plaintiff incurred damages equivalent to KRW 22,127,235 for the said double text construction contract, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said damages (i.e., KRW 14,00,000, KRW 22,127,235).

The defendant alleged by the defendant without specifying the number of goods between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, entered into a supply contract for reinforced materials, and first purchased iron plates of approximately 8,596km ( approximately 8,500,000) and completed production, and then approximately 3,680 of them among the plaintiff.