1. The defendant shall pay 135,700,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from January 11, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Basic Facts

On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell each of the medical devices listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant medical device”) as sales price of KRW 1457 million (including value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

The Plaintiff delivered the instant medical device to the Defendant pursuant to the instant sales contract, and received KRW 10 million as down payment from the Defendant.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining purchase price of KRW 135.7 million (= KRW 145.7 million - KRW 10.5 million) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 11, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment.

The judgment of the defendant on the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff and C operate entertainment establishments in the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D D Building, and the medical corporation's name was unable to establish a medical institution without notifying the defendant, and sold the medical device of this case by deceiving the defendant as if it was possible to establish the medical institution under the name of the medical corporation. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the contract of this case was revoked by delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff deceivings the defendant as alleged by

The Defendant, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, owned the instant medical device, not the Plaintiff’s ownership, and thus, asserted that the instant sales contract was rescinded by delivering a copy of the complaint of this case. Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant medical device was not owned by the Plaintiff at the time of conclusion of the instant sales contract. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.