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. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the production and installation of households among the new apartment construction works of the 161-178 apartment construction in the Yancheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City at the same time from the Sejong Construction Co., Ltd. of the said company.

In addition, on February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a material supply contract with the Defendant on the said apartment with the content of the product, such as the main seating board, line board, etc., and the term of the contract from February 6, 2017 to April 30, 2017, with the total price of KRW 11,9350,000 (including value-added tax) for the supply and installation of the goods.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

On April 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he completed the installation of all products.

However, on May 29, 2017, the Defendant paid only KRW 19,30,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 13, 2017, and KRW 29.3 million on July 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 4, 5, 6-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. After entering into the instant contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff completed the supply and installation of all products in accordance with the above contract and its estimate.

Nevertheless, the defendant paid only KRW 19,300,000 out of KRW 11,9350,000,000 and did not pay the remainder KRW 1,050,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 10 million and delay damages.

B. According to the Defendant’s assertion in the written estimate of the contract of this case, the items of “ball board” refers to the whole number of the main room, which includes the part of “ball” in the number of the main room.

However, the Plaintiff only constructed the parts of the number of the building stand, and did not execute the said part of the “ball”, and the Defendant spent KRW 10 million to directly execute this.

Therefore, the above KRW 10 million should be deducted from the price of goods to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

3. Examination of the judgment of this Court, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 9-1.