1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a commodity contract with the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff supplied 112 points of Class 18, such as the personal dose system, which is a counterterrorism device, to the Defendant by November 7, 2016, and is to receive 60,550,620 won for the goods from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The standard form presented by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at the time of the contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant standard form”) is specified as 0.06ke V - 3.0 MeV, the standard of energy scope that can be measured by the personal dose system.

B. The Plaintiff did not complete the delivery by November 7, 2016, which is the delivery deadline under the instant contract, and the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to perform the delivery twice in November 2016. On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff promised to implement the delivery by disclosing personal circumstances as the process of delaying the delivery.

C. After that, on March 7, 2017, the Defendant changed the delivery period from November 7, 2016 to March 14, 2017; and on August 16, 2017 to September 20, 2017, respectively, the delivery period was changed from March 14, 2017 to September 20, and the Plaintiff submitted as a guaranty insurance policy the insufficient amount of compensation for delay to extend the delivery period.

On January 4, 2018, the Defendant terminated the instant contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the contract without good cause, and taken measures to revert KRW 35,046,882 to the National Treasury.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5 and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant specification states that “the scope of energy that can be measured” of the personal dosimeter (hereinafter “the instant energy specification”) is “0.06keV - 3.0 MV” and there is no product that satisfies the instant specification. As such, the instant agreement is null and void since the purpose of the instant contract is in an original impossibility.

Since the defendant was negligent in not knowing that the above size of the personal dose system was wrong, the defendant is negligent.