1. Of the instant lawsuit, “in the event that the execution of the obligation to deliver as stated in Paragraph (2) is impossible, KRW 18,000,000 shall be paid.”

1. As to the legality of the part of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought delivery of the movable property indicated in the separate sheet to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff claimed that “if the delivery execution is impossible, payment of KRW 18,00,000 shall be made in the event of the impossibility of delivery,” the part of the claim in the instant lawsuit shall be deemed lawful ex officio.

In order to be lawful in a lawsuit for future performance with respect to future claims or conditional claims, the legal and de facto relationship, which serves as the basis of the occurrence of such claims, should exist at the time of the closing of argument, and such status should be anticipated to continue, and the claim

(Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4902, 4919 delivered on November 11, 1997). In the event that the delivery execution of movable property as stated in the separate sheet sought by the Plaintiff is impossible, the part of the claim seeking monetary payment cannot be predicted at the present point of time as to whether the future delivery execution is possible, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the claim in advance is necessary to be filed as a lawsuit for future performance.

Therefore, the above claim part among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the Defendant’s order, the Plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement to install the Defendant’s groundwater water intake device, and received KRW 1.5 million from August 7, 2017.

On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff installed three parts of the FRP tank 50L from the Defendant’s groundwater water intake source in a functional category. On September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff collected an installation of an installation device upon contact with the Defendant that “the production quantity is insufficient compared to the art.” The Plaintiff newly installed three parts of the FRP tank 3 parts of the FRP tank with inherent 200L as shown in the attached list.

On February 28, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff.

B. On March 12, 2018, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff changed the system from the functional category to the parallel method.

C. On April 2, 2018, the Defendant, despite the Plaintiff’s incombustible removal device, detected in groundwater.