1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a shipbuilding contract with the main content “by June 30, 2012, the Defendant constructed and delivered GHI SAI CATMAMARN 55 feet (hereinafter “instant vessel”) to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid 1.1 billion won including value-added tax to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On September 9, 2012, the Defendant handed over the instant vessel to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff paid a total of KRW 890 million to the defendant for the construction cost of KRW 890 million.

On June 17, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking KRW 210 million for the remainder of shipbuilding cost (=10 million - KRW 890 million) with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2013 tea181, the Manpo District Court Decision 2013Hu181.

After raising an objection against the payment order of the above court, the Plaintiff asserted that “(i) as the delivery of the instant vessel was delayed, the Defendant should pay KRW 39 million to the Plaintiff with compensation for delay, and (ii) the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the aggregate of KRW 91,586,220 of the repair cost of the fuel tank defects in the instant vessel and KRW 3,054 million to the passengers due to the suspension of operation of the vessel.”

C. On July 21, 2016, the Gwangju District Court rendered a judgment on July 21, 2016 that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the penalty for delay 2,00,000 won due to the delay in delivery of the instant vessel, ② the aggregate of the repair cost of the fuel tank defects of the instant vessel, ③ the remainder of the construction cost of the instant vessel 135,745,000 won excluding the amount of damages equivalent to the boarding fee that the Plaintiff returned to the passengers (i.e., KRW 20,000 - KRW 21,715,000 - KRW 30540,00) and damages for delay (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

On August 2, 2016, after the original copy of the instant judgment was served on the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the Defendant against the instant judgment.