Background
Our client, a telecommunications company, supplies smart education solutions to kindergartens. In June 2018 it contracted with a kindergarten operator for KRW 216,000,000 (excluding VAT), payable over 36 months. The operator provided a surety bond guaranteeing payment and signed a delivery and inspection certificate. Payments stopped in 2020, and in 2023 our client warned that it would claim on the bond unless the outstanding KRW 112,200,000 was paid. The operator then sued for a declaration that the debt did not exist, claiming that nothing had been delivered, that no training was given, and that the contract had been terminated.
What Was at Stake
The case turned on whether our client had actually performed its supply obligations.
How Changchun Helped
Law Firm Changchun contested the claim, and the court agreed on each point. Items such as electronic whiteboards and tablets appeared in the quotation with unit prices only, without quantities or amounts, so they were not part of the contract. A court inquiry to the installation subcontractor confirmed that its staff visited the kindergarten, issued 84 licenses, set up content access, remote-management software and wireless equipment, and created 4 teacher and 120 student accounts. The court also held that the signed inspection certificate showed training had been given, and rejected the claim that it was signed before delivery as implausible.
Outcome
In November 2025 the first-instance court dismissed the operator's claim and ordered the operator to bear the costs, leaving our client's payment claim intact.
Delivery certificates and installation records are central evidence of performance, and they matter most in long-term installment contracts. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.)