beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 71,701,642 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from October 13, 2014 to May 28, 2015; and (b) May 29, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the modification of the contract amount and the payment period extension as the contract amount of KRW 74,940,000 for the 15 high speed engine and propelling machine maintenance (hereinafter “instant maintenance”) from the Navy on April 21, 2014, and concluded a contract for the modification of the contract amount and the payment period extension as of December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff increased the contract amount to KRW 139,484,220.
(hereinafter “instant maintenance contract”). According to the instant maintenance contract, the rate of liquidated damages is 0.25% of the contract amount.
B. On May 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract to purchase parts for the instant improvement from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid advance payment of KRW 70 million to the Defendant on June 27, 2014.
C. Of the parts that the Defendant entered into the Plaintiff, only the parts equivalent to KRW 24,451,648 were used for the instant maintenance, and the remainder was not found or did not overlap with the existing parts.
Meanwhile, due to the delay in the Defendant’s parts, the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,153,290 for delay compensation (from July 31, 2014 to October 13, 2014) under the instant maintenance contract to the Navy, because it was impossible for the Plaintiff to perform the maintenance of high speed group by the payment period of the instant maintenance contract.
E. On September 22, 2014 and November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the price for parts and the compensation for delay not admitted by content-certified mail.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, since the Defendant failed to perform the instant part sales contract, the part 45,548,352 won, which was not performed in the instant part sales contract due to nonperformance to the Plaintiff (i.e., advance payment of KRW 70,000,00 paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant part sales contract - Parts 24,451,648 won suffered by the Defendant) and the Defendant’s non-performance of the instant part sales contract.