1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 23,00,000 and KRW 15,000 among them, the Defendant shall start on April 9, 2019, and the remainder of KRW 8,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of tables PC (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant. The key contents of the contract are as follows.

Article 2 (Period of Delivery/Manufacture of Products)

A. The Defendant shall deliver ten prototypes among the contractual products agreed with the Plaintiff pursuant to this Agreement to the place designated by the Plaintiff by November 12, 2017.

B. The Defendant began to supply 90 goods agreed upon with the Plaintiff under this Agreement from November 27, 2017, and to supply 100 goods per day until December 8, 2017 to the place designated by the Plaintiff.

Article 3 (Price and Supply of Products)

(a)the total costs required for the development/production/supply of the contract products under this Agreement shall be 148,500,000 won;

Article 4 (Determination of Functions)

(a)The principal functions and specifications of the contract products under this Agreement shall be determined on the basis of the following sub-paragraph (b):

(b) Major skills required - Functional installation of a road map - able to emulsion method linked to external master-morse method - able to use TID - Article 9 (Compensation for Delayed Damages)

A. When the defendant fails to observe the major development schedule agreed with the plaintiff in the course of performing the contract, he shall determine the amount equivalent to 3/100 of the contract amount as liquidated damages for each one day of delay from the date of completion of the contract concerned, and shall deduct it from the payment of the price under Article 6 of the contract.

(b) Standard point of imposition of liquidated damages for delay ① Time of delivery of prototypes (on November 12, 2017)

B. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid each of the Defendant the down payment of KRW 44 million on September 19, 2017, and the intermediate payment of KRW 44 million on September 28, 2017.

C. The Defendant and C supplied a prototype twice via the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff provided the product that was normally capable of working by December 15, 2018 on the ground that the said product did not have “satise liquid action”.