1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,00,000 as well as annual 6% from January 7, 2014 to June 18, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in construction machinery sales and maintenance business, and the Defendant is a company that engages in construction waste interim disposal business.

B. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on December 16, 2013, under which the Plaintiff supplied A’s Boli c290B digging machines (hereinafter “instant digging machines”) to the Defendant for KRW 121,00,000,000, and at the Defendant’s work site. Of the above payments, the down payment and intermediate payment are set at KRW 60,000 (the down payment and intermediate payment are not separately determined) and the remainder amount is set at KRW 61,00,000,000 and the remainder amount is paid until January 6, 2014 after the completion of the installation.

(hereinafter “instant delivery contract”). C.

By December 16, 2013, pursuant to the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff completed the work of installing the instant digging pool at the Defendant’s work site. On December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 60,000,000 from the Defendant for down payment and intermediate payment.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, and the facts of the above recognition as to the grounds for a claim to determine the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 61,000,000 under the supply contract of this case and delay damages from January 7, 2014, which is the day following the remainder payment due date, unless there are special circumstances.

(A) The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages for delay from January 6, 2014, but can claim damages for delay from the date following the payment date of the remainder. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim as to the Defendant’s assertion is not accepted. The Plaintiff recommended the Defendant to “if the Plaintiff operates the digging machine with an engine, the force is better than the time it operates with an engine” before entering into the instant supply contract, and recommended the instant digging pool for the combined use of electrical engines, and even without installing a separate voltage rupture, the Plaintiff may install and use the voltage rupture in the instant digging machine.