beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff is a machine that produces the structural frame of the steel-framer machinery located in the Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun, the Defendant purchased between the Defendant (mutual name D) and the Defendant (mutual name D), and the instant machinery (hereinafter referred to as the “instant machinery”).
(b) installed a longer machinery, the total length of which is about 100 meters;
) The Plaintiff removed and completed a service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff to carry out the work of setting up and completing the work to be done until the trial run at KRW 264,00,000,00 for the factory of the Vietnam-Seoul Dawing, which is operated by the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s business scope under the instant contract refers to the trial run to confirm whether the test operation, which is the Defendant’s business, is manufactured by completing the installation of the machinery and operating the machinery (the Plaintiff means the trial run to confirm whether the machinery works after installing the machinery, is one’s business scope and the test run to confirm whether the product is manufactured. However, the reason for the trial run, is the confirmation of whether the machinery is manufactured by normal operation, and the Plaintiff is responsible for the trial run to manufacture the prototype in the case of the machinery in which the machinery directly manufactured and sold, and considering that the Plaintiff tried to think that the test product was manufactured until the trial run and the Defendant claimed to change the Defendant’s idea because it was not paid properly, the meaning of the trial run is recognized as above.
After the contract of this case, the Plaintiff dismantled the instant machinery in Korea from November 22, 2016, and performed the work of relocating it to the Berne Down factory.
However, due to the delay in the construction of electricity supplied from the outside of the above factory to the above factory, the construction of electricity in the above machinery was somewhat delayed.
C. The plaintiff did not complete the installation of machinery and the trial run, and the defendant paid the price.