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 May 10, 2012, the Defendant concluded a purchase contract with Yeongdeungpo-gun and Young-gu Public Sewage Treatment Center (Seoul-gun), stating that “the construction of facilities for treating people to reuse discharged sewage” means “the construction of facilities for treating people to reuse discharged sewage.” In relation to this, the Defendant concluded a purchase contract with the Young-gun, Young-gun, which read that the Defendant would supply the materials necessary for the said construction to KRW 943,600,000 for the said construction cost.”

B. On September 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) stating that “The Plaintiff wishes to supply and install each one of the instant goods, which is part of the goods under the said purchase contract, to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant goods”).

C. The main contents of the contract prepared under the instant contract are as follows.

The actual contract amount: The actual payment method of KRW 473,873,400 (including value-added tax): - Within 14 days after the execution of advance payment - 50% (cash) - Within 14 days after the issuance of intermediate payment - within 30% (cash) - 20% (cash) after the commencement of the operation of the intermediate payment - the actual supply place: The actual delivery period of the actual tax on the field of the Yeongdeungpo Public Sewage Treatment Center (Establishment) : The actual payment period from September 15, 2012 to January 9, 2013: The actual payment period shall be determined as the completion when the proposal is satisfied after the completion of the operation.

D. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the installation of the supply of the instant goods (the installation period of the instant goods under the instant contract until January 9, 2013, but the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, namely, the Defendant’s delayed delivery of advance payment or the letter of approval for the production of the instant goods, etc., appears to have been delayed as above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da4760, Apr. 10, 2015). The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time with the filing period of appeal.

(2) On October 1, 2013, the supply confirmation service is conducted in the presence of a public official in charge of Yong-gun.