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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of developing and supplying applied software in the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacturing and processing wholesale and retail business of goods.

B. The Plaintiff was requested by the Defendant to produce “B website” and “D website” (hereinafter “instant website”) and completed the production of each website on June 30, 2016, and completed the delivery to the Defendant.

C. On August 19, 2016, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice consisting of the total value and value-added tax amount of 7,040,000 on the production and delivery of the instant website to the Defendant.

[Evidence Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff completed the production and delivery of the web site at the request of the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 7,040,000,000, including the production cost. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 7,040,000 and the delay damages therefor.

B. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to additionally perform some functions, such as online trade, setnets, etc. while providing the existing web site that the Defendant used by the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not engage in any additional work requested by the Defendant, and did not report the completion and transfer of the work. Ultimately, some of the two web site (E) were not used, and the remainder (F) remains only in the form of the existing web site.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have properly performed the work requested by the defendant, and the defendant is not obligated to pay the above web site production cost to the plaintiff.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap's evidence as well as Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, i.e., the representative director of G defendant company H.