원상회복 등 청구
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall receive machines listed in the annexed sheet from the plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when a part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used or added as follows, and therefore, it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Parts used or added;
A. The part of “each entry and image of evidence Nos. 13 through 20” in the third part of the fifth part of the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be read as “each entry and image of evidence No. 13 through No. 29, the chief of the Namyang chief of the party, and the result of each fact-finding with respect to F.
(b) 5 pages of the first instance judgment.
In the 7th sentence of Paragraph 7, the phrase "the sale price of KRW 22,00,000 and the damages for delay thereon" shall be written with "the sale price of KRW 22,00,000".
(c)The following shall be added between the 7th sentence and the 3rd sentence:
In regard to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's negligence should be reflected in calculating the amount of damages, since the plaintiff's negligence, which was accumulated in the machinery of this case, should be reflected in calculating the amount of damages. However, the above amount of damages to be paid by the defendant due to the cancellation of the contract of this case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all other causes, such as the plaintiff's error in construction, in addition to the structural defect of the machinery of this case, and thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.
Decision of the first instance court shall be 7 pages of the decision.
The main part of this paragraph shall be filled by the following:
(C) The Defendant asserted that the value-added tax equivalent to KRW 2 million out of the purchase price of the instant machinery was to be refunded. Thus, the Plaintiff’s defense that KRW 2 million should be deducted from the above purchase price to be recovered.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was refunded value-added tax amounting to KRW 2 million, and even if the Plaintiff received the refund, the value-added tax was also refunded.