beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,250,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 18, 2015 to July 7, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for the development of software and hardware (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the contract period shall be from January 26, 2015 to June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the design and manufacture of hardware (BLE) devices for the construction of BLE-based services, and design and manufacture of software ( smartphone display linked to HDware). In return, the Defendant entered into a contract for the development of software and hardware (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. The main contents of the above service contract related to the instant case are as follows:
Article 9 (Performance of Services)
1. As to the schedule for the performance of the service, a separate “BLE System Development Plan and Schedule” shall apply;
[Separate Omission] Article 18 (Payment of Service Amount and Price)
2. Payment method (excluding value-added tax) of the service cost: The payment of KRW 1,00,000 per day, KRW 2,000,000 won by February 2, 2015: The remainder payment of KRW 3,000 per day, and until March 31, 2015: Article 23 (Termination of Contract) after the last inspection.
2. If the Plaintiff terminates this contract due to the Defendant’s continuous nonperformance of the contract, the Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff’s performance rate of duties and the payment of the service price pursuant to Article 18(2).
The rate of performance of duties shall correspond to the addition BLE System Development Plan and Schedule.
(In the event of termination by March 31 after the contract, the intermediate payment shall be paid in installments according to the Jindo rate. On or after March 31, the payment of the intermediate payment and the balance shall be made in accordance with the Jindo rate.
After the conclusion of the instant service contract, the Plaintiff commenced system development, such as requesting the relevant business entity to develop the BLE app development. The Defendant did not pay the down payment prescribed in the instant service contract to the Plaintiff by February 2, 2015, and requested the Plaintiff to suspend the progress of the service around March 2015.