1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that carries on robot parts manufacturing business, and the Defendant is a company that carries on machinery manufacturing business.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant for robots installed by the Defendant in the factory in the Malaysia as a model for trial operation, and set the service price at KRW 7,260,00 (hereinafter “instant service price”).

On September 2016, the Plaintiff completed the robot trial operation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the service cost of KRW 7.26 million and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from November 1, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The occurrence of an accident involving the collision between the two parts of robots, which the Plaintiff completed the trial operation with the service, and due to this, the damages did not receive USD 19,695.78 from the ordering office, and thus, the instant claim based on the premise that the Plaintiff completed the service without any defect is without merit. 2) Of the service cost, KRW 1650,000,000 of the service cost was claimed as the cost of re-construction due to the collision, and thus, should

B. The evidence submitted by the Defendant to determine whether it is impossible to claim service costs due to one defect is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had a defect in the robot that completed the trial operation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defect.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, it was confirmed that there was no defect as a result of checking whether the robot program was operated in the Malaysia factory from October 16, 2016 to October 18, 2016.