beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the terms that set the contract amount at KRW 660,00,00 (including value-added tax) with the Plaintiff’s factory located in Ansan-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul-si, which is located in the Plaintiff’s 740-5, Ansan-si.
The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.
Contracts with Major Contents
4. Price payment method (cash) 1: The first payment - 110,000,000 won (within five days after the conclusion of the contract) and the second payment including value-added tax - 330,000,000 won (including value-added tax immediately after the determination of the loan for environmental improvement funds;
6.The terms and conditions of the special agreement include one grant/loan / Authorization Delegation Fee of 6,00,000 won, subject to prior payment after the conclusion of a contract, separately from the construction cost.
Article 5 Performance Guarantee of Terms and Conditions
1. The equipment to be supplied under this Agreement must satisfy the environmental standards set out in the Environmental Act, currently applicable on August 27, 2014.
Article 8 Cancellation and Termination of Contracts
4. Liability 2) In the event of a cause attributable to “B” (Defendant), “B” shall return advance payment received from “A” (Plaintiff) to “A.” (2) “B” shall additionally pay 10% of the construction amount as penalty for breach of contract. (c) The Plaintiff paid KRW 110,000,000 to the Defendant three times from September 3, 2014 to October 8, 2014 under the instant contract. (d) After the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff filed an application for the “Air Pollution Improvement Fund” with the head of the Si Reconstruction Green Support Center, and on December 8, 2014, the Si Reconstruction Support Center notified the Plaintiff that it falls short of the evaluation criteria in the on-site inspection conducted by the Plaintiff as an environmental expert, and thus, the said funding was impossible.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s ground for the claim lies in the Defendant’s financing of environmental improvement funds at the time of entering into the instant contract.