1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 55 million to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from May 24, 2019 to October 22, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to manufacture “mask factoring packaging automation machines”.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the production cost as KRW 100 million (excluding value-added tax, KRW 50% of the down payment, KRW 30% of the intermediate payment, and the remainder payment after the completion of installation

[Written estimate] The Plaintiff and the Defendant set the price of KRW 100 million as KRW 150 million (Evidence A). The Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 100 million (hereinafter “instant contract”). On May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45 million to the Defendant as down payment.

B. On October 24, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “If the Defendant delays the manufacture and supply of machinery, and fails to comply by November 10, 2018, the Plaintiff would withdraw legal measures.”

On November 9, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “The Plaintiff reduced the manufacturing cost from KRW 150 million to KRW 100 million on condition of requesting the manufacture of 20 machinery, and the Plaintiff paid only KRW 45 million out of the down payment, the remainder of the down payment plus KRW 35 million in total, and the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content that “The Plaintiff would pay KRW 150 million in the initial estimated price to take over only one unit without any additional order.” On the same day, the Defendant sent a certificate of content that “The Plaintiff would pay KRW 150 million in the initial estimated price to take over even one unit without any additional order.” On the same day, the Plaintiff sent the video (Evidence 6) operated by the Defendant’s machinery (hereinafter “instant machinery”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 4, and 7 evidence or video, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were able to pack at least 50,000 m3 per day as of 80,000 m30,000 m3 and 4 m3 m4 m3. The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to manufacture the m3m3 m3 m4 m3 package machines

However, the machinery of this case is very low speed, and it is not a four short folding type, and it is not possible to pack at the same time vinyl.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s contract of this case is based on the Defendant’s default.