beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 22 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 6% per annum from November 24, 2015 to September 22, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a mechanical manufacturing contract with the Defendant for the manufacture and supply of three machinery, such as one SP-Jinin automatic assembly machine, one SP-Jin airtight tester, and one set of strings for the assembly of the known valves (hereinafter “instant contract”).
The main contents thereof are as follows:
The manufacturing price shall be KRW 140,00,000 (Additional Tax separately), but the advance payment shall be KRW 43 million within seven days after the conclusion of the contract, and KRW 5,00,000 within ten days after the completion of the assembly, the remainder shall be approved after the completion of the assembly, and shall not exceed a maximum of 45 days (Article 3 of the contract in this case). The defendant may dispatch relevant technicians to the Plaintiff’s production process and provide necessary advice and correction, and the plaintiff shall faithfully perform the work in the drawing submitted by the defendant, and the suspected facts of the error in the drawing in the production process shall be verified immediately by the defendant. The plaintiff shall notify the defendant of the relevant facts if it is deemed that the production in accordance with the drawing submitted by the defendant is insufficient to realize the relevant function, and the plaintiff shall comply with the defendant’s opinion, and the plaintiff’s negligence in the manufacturing process shall be deemed as non-existent in principle at the place of the defendant’s completion of the contract (Article 4 of the contract in this case).
After delivery, the Plaintiff is obliged to supply the machinery by making it possible to operate the pertinent machinery in a normal manner. By June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff manufactures and delivers the machinery to the Defendant by June 20, 2014, but there is a delay penalty equivalent to 1/1,000 of the manufactured amount. However, this does not apply to delay due to the Defendant’s justifiable reasons (Article 7 of the instant contract).
The defendant is produced between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on April 2014.