1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company that manufactures semiconductor equipment, etc., and the defendant is a company that exports and imports semiconductor materials and equipment.

On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant to manufacture and install the HVPE 1 unit (hereinafter “instant equipment”); (b) decided that the price be KRW 195,530,000 (excluding value-added tax); and (c) entered into a contract with the Defendant with the said content verbally.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff manufactured the instant equipment by May 2, 2014, and installed it in the Chinese upper family factory designated by the Defendant.

On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff received an additional request from the Defendant for the installation of Quar and Quar, and completed the installation by the end of August 2014, and the cost is KRW 46,150,000 (excluding value-added tax).

The Defendant paid each total of KRW 148,831,400,000, including KRW 64,524,90 on February 14, 2014, KRW 50 million on September 12, 2014, KRW 25 million on April 22, 2015, KRW 306,50 on December 30, 2015, KRW 300 on March 10, 2016, KRW 148,831,40 on May 9, 2016, to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, the parties' assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the unpaid price of KRW 117,016,60, as the defendant completed the manufacture and installation of the equipment of this case, including Quuar and puar Zzz, (30,00 won of value added tax of KRW 19,530,00 of value added tax of KRW 46,150,615,00) - 148,831,400 of value added tax of KRW 195,530,00).

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the price because it could not produce the product properly by using the instant equipment installed by the Plaintiff.

Judgment

As recognized by the plaintiff, the equipment of this case is determined by reflecting the requirements of the defendant, who is the orderer, and the equipment is determined by the original defendant, and the defendant's approval for the design drawings, manufacturing parts, etc. submitted by the plaintiff during the manufacturing process.