The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff runs the machinery parts processing business with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant runs the machinery parts manufacturing business with the trade name of “D.”

From February 2019, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to process the parts of the machinery, and the Defendant was frequently in the process of processing the parts.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff paid the total processing cost to the Defendant on February 2019, but even thereafter, the Defendant’s defective processing occurred, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant made an oral agreement to settle the delayed work and the reprocessing cost due to the Defendant’s defective processing.

As above, the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s failure to process and the delay in work, etc. are ① KRW 50,00 for modified processing costs incurred due to the Defendant’s failure to process the products, ② KRW 275,00 for costs incurred from the Defendant’s erroneous work with respect to the products, ③ KRW 9,460,00 for costs processed from other companies due to the Defendant’s delay in payment period, ③ KRW 10,535,000 for transportation costs plus KRW 275,000 for + KRW 275,000 for + KRW 9,460,000 for + KRW 250,000 for transportation costs.

From the above damages, even if the Defendant unilaterally offsets the amount of KRW 2,079,000 for the processing cost of the tax invoice issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 8,456,00 (=10,535,000 – KRW 2,079,000) and the delayed damages.

B. First of all, we examine whether the Defendant was processed or delayed the payment period as alleged by the Plaintiff, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff paid the processing cost in February 2019, even if the processing defect occurred frequently in the Defendant’s processing work, and continuously traded. In light of the fact that it appears on an exceptional basis in light of general commercial transactions, the Plaintiff submitted.