2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On November 14, 2013, the Defendant agreed to purchase at KRW 55,00,000 of 10 straw golf machines (hereinafter “instant machinery”) from the Plaintiff, and the down payment of KRW 16,50,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff was concluded, and the intermediate payment of KRW 22,50,000,000,000,000, not later than November 28, 2013, seven days before the instant machinery is installed, and the remainder of KRW 16,50,00,000,000,000, not later than December 5, 2013 when the installation of a program is

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

Under the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid the down payment and intermediate payment to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff installed the instant machinery at the Defendant’s workplace.

【Ground for recognition】 There is no dispute

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion completed the inspection after installing the instant machinery, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the remaining purchase and sale price of KRW 16.5 million and damages for delay from December 6, 2013, which is the day following the due date.

Furthermore, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff repaired all of the defects of the instant machinery, and the Defendant actually accessed the Plaintiff’s server using the instant machinery from December 24, 2013 to April 3, 2014.

The defect alleged by the defendant is not a problem of the machinery of this case, but a defect of management and operation of the defendant, so it cannot be said that the contract rescission has been made to the defendant.

In addition, the argument that the non-party corporation A (hereinafter referred to as "A") paid the balance through A is merely a mere introduction, not a joint seller of the Plaintiff and a joint seller, cannot be accepted.

B. Since the construction of the instant machinery claimed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the repair of defects due to continuous defects, but failed to be resolved. The representative director of the instant machinery, which ought to be prompt, was in contact with the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Defendant cancelled the instant sales contract on the grounds that the purpose of the contract could not be achieved, and removed the instant machinery.