1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the principal lawsuit shall be revoked;

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

2...

The scope of the judgment in this Court claimed that the Defendant pay 5,472,500 won for the goods and damages for delay. The Defendant, as a counterclaim, claimed damages of 10,584,758 won following the rescission of the contract and damages for delay. The first instance court accepted all the claims of the Plaintiff and dismissed all the claims of the Defendant for counterclaim.

Accordingly, without filing an appeal, the plaintiff appealed against the part against the above principal lawsuit and the part against the counterclaiming for payment of KRW 3,863,758 among the part against the counterclaim and damages for delay thereof. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the above defendant's appeal.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a household producer, and the defendant is a corporation that runs the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling bags.

On October 26, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Ministry of National Defense for the supply of 65 kinds, such as portable tamper searchlights, etc., to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration. On December 7, 2012, the Defendant subcontracted to the Plaintiff 7,672,50 won of a bank for inserting searchlights (hereinafter referred to as “tamper, etc.”) for the production of 470 items (including sampling) for inserting searchlights.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The Defendant paid KRW 2,200,000 to the Plaintiff as advance payment.

Before the conclusion of the instant subcontract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the date of payment as December 17, 2012. Of the above payments, 30% of the above payment is pre-determined to be paid in advance upon entering into a contract with advance payment, and the remainder 70% of the remainder after delivery of the product. The Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff issue a copy of the detailed drawings such as search and investigation conducted by the Ministry of National Defense, and that the Defendant produce and request a bank consistent with the drawing.

On December 17, 2012, the defendant submitted a written request for audit and inspection to the Technical Quality Institute of National Defense on December 17, 2012, however, on the ground that there was no results of the official test issued by the FITI of FIT on the 20th of the same month.