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. The summary of the judgment of the court of first instance: (a) around April 30, 2013, the Defendant awarded a contract for the construction of facilities to recover fluid metals from nitrok and copper ABS resin (hereinafter “instant facilities construction”); (b) Youngtech subcontracted the design and construction of core facilities among the above facilities construction on the same day to the Plaintiff; and (c) on June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply KRW 18,800,000 to the Defendant for supply on December 2, 2013; and (d) on August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to supply KRW 1,872,00,000 to the Defendant for the installation of facilities to recover fluid metals; and (e) on August 22, 2013, the Defendant paid the remainder of the supplied goods to the Defendant with KRW 306,000,000,0000 (hereinafter “the remainder of the supplied”).

In addition, the defendant's argument was judged to be without merit as follows.

The Defendant asserted that each of the supply contracts of this case was cancelled on the premise that the Plaintiff, including trial run, entered into a supply contract of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff completed the construction of the facilities of this case, on the ground that there was any change in circumstances that the Plaintiff would no longer need to sell the goods supplied by the Plaintiff at the site after suspending the trial run of the facilities of this case.

As to this, the court of first instance determined that the completion of the facility construction of this case, including the trial operation of the facility of this case, cannot be seen as an objective circumstance that served as the basis for the establishment of each supply contract of this case.

The defendant raised objection.