1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,609,100 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from February 27, 2018 to December 13, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacturing of electronic equipment under the trade name of “C”.

B. Around September 22, 2017, the Plaintiff received a contract on October 30, 2017, setting the construction period of KRW 70 million from the Defendant (the contract amount of KRW 14 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 21 million, the remainder of KRW 35 million), and the construction period as the contract amount of KRW 30 million.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

On September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff received payment of KRW 14 million, which is part of the construction cost from the Defendant.

The Plaintiff produced polytechnics, etc. under the instant contract, but did not receive intermediate payments from the Defendant. On November 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to deliver products in the form at the time except assembly and connection to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 50 million as the price up to that time.

E. Accordingly, around November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the products made at the time at the Defendant’s request, and the Defendant concluded the remainder of the instant contract, such as assembly and connection by using the supplied polytechnics, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 36 million (=50 million - 14 million) to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the contract cancellation is not possible to achieve the purpose of the contract due to the defects of polyT supplied by the plaintiff, and therefore, the contract of this case is cancelled.

However, in light of the fact that the later supplement of polyT, which the Defendant, was repairing by adding booms, etc. to the first supply of the Plaintiff, the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize the fact that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract due to the defects of polyT supplied by the Plaintiff.