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. The party's assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around 2014, the Plaintiff (Es. Es. Es. (former company: Es. Es.) entered into a contract for services on the construction of the website with the Defendant as “service price of KRW 60 million (excluding value-added tax)” and “from November 21, 2014 to March 21, 2015 during the development period (hereinafter “instant contract”) and thereafter, the Plaintiff provided the result of the website to the Defendant on or around March 2015, but the Defendant provided multiple dopings and paid only KRW 18.3 million in total to the Plaintiff (i) KRW 6.5 million on November 25, 2014; ② KRW 150 million on December 29, 2014; ③ KRW 6.5 million on December 28, 2015; and ④ KRW 305 million on March 25, 2015).

Accordingly, on April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice for KRW 36.7 million (the total service price of KRW 60 million, excluding the Defendant’s direct payment of KRW 10 million in the program production enterprise, and the amount calculated by subtracting the already paid KRW 18.3 million from the total value-added tax of KRW 55 million, excluding the Defendant’s direct payment of KRW 10 million in the program production enterprise) and filed a claim against the Defendant.

3) However, the Defendant requested reduction of the service cost on the ground that the corporate circumstance is difficult, and the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant around July 2015, that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 6.6 million each on August 30, 2015 and September 29, 2015, and the Plaintiff shall pay the balance of the work cost claimed by the Defendant on the website production provided that the Plaintiff shall pay the said money at the accurate time, and the Plaintiff shall deduct the balance of the work cost claimed by the Defendant on the condition that the said money would be paid.” However, the Defendant paid only KRW 2.2 million on August 31, 2015, and failed to perform the obligation under the said agreement. As such, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant the payment of KRW 34.5 million the balance of the work cost unpaid prior to the agreement on reduction (i.e., the unpaid service cost 3., KRW 6.7 million - KRW 2.2 million).

B. Although the Plaintiff promised to develop the original website program itself, it would later purchase and remodel the existing shopping mall program.