Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff

A. From August 1, 2019 to March 12, 2021, KRW 15,350,000 and its interest.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, and 8, as a whole:

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of manufacturing the hydrotension presses with the trade name of “E”, and the Defendants are those engaged in the business of manufacturing machinery with the trade name of “F.”

B. On October 29, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a “contract for the manufacture, supply, and installation of machinery parts.” The content thereof is that the Defendants concluded a “contract for the manufacture, supply, and installation of machinery parts.” The Defendants’ provision of the instant system outside the compresseder transfer system (1. The full supply of the products is a transmission

2.On the upper part of roller,

3.3.On-siteing and cutting devices;

4. Means to transfer compresseded or compressed products;

5.Farctic discharge apparatus;

6.Installation of a back-to-side discharge outlet;

7. The Plaintiff will be produced and supplied with the front rap / scam of the roing machine, and the payment period was set on November 17, 2018, and the price of supplied goods was 12 million won (the down payment is KRW 6 million, the remaining amount is KRW 6 million) (hereinafter “supply contract in this case”).

On November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted down payment of KRW 6.6 million (including value added tax) to the account under Defendant B’s name, and on March 29, 2019, additionally remitted KRW 2.750,000 (including value added tax) to the account under Defendant B’s name.

2. The Plaintiff’s rescission of the instant supply contract is based on the premise that the Plaintiff rescinded the instant supply contract on the grounds of the Defendants’ nonperformance of obligations, and the Defendants are dissatisfied with this, first, we examine whether the instant supply contract was lawfully rescinded.

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5 and 12 through 16 (including branch numbers), the defendants failed to complete the machinery by November 17, 2018, which is the due date for the delivery of the instant supply contract, and the plaintiff sent to the defendants around March 8, 2019 that the supply contract of this case is terminated, and the defendants failed to proceed with the lack of material prices, and thus, part of the balance is remaining.