2. The principal lawsuit of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4-1 and 2 as to the grounds for the claim of this lawsuit, according to the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, one model name PMA400LB (hereinafter “instant machinery”) for the defendant on May 6, 2013.

[Attachment 148,500,000 (including value-added tax of KRW 13,500,000) for sale (hereinafter “instant sales contract”)

(2) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay 13,500,000 won (=148,500,000 - 135,000,000 won) to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, and delay damages therefrom.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense against the main lawsuit and the cause of the counterclaim

A. The main argument of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant did not have the performance that the defendant wants, and the defendant revoked the sales contract of this case on the grounds of the above defect, and thus, the defendant raised a defense against the lawsuit that did not have the obligation to pay the balance of the sales price, and at the same time, sought a refund of the sales price and compensation for damages that the defendant paid to the

Preliminary assertion that the Defendant purchased the instant machinery by causing a mistake in the performance of the instant machinery, and the Defendant, as it revoked the instant sales contract on the grounds of mistake, raised a defense against the Plaintiff that there was no obligation to pay any balance of the sales price, and at the same time, sought a return of the sales price paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as a counterclaim.

In the below, the defendant is judged in the order of claim for cancellation of contract and cancellation of contract.

B. The defendant is unable to achieve the purpose of the contract of this case because there is a defect in the machinery of this case.