A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who manufactures machinery used for automobiles, etc. with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a business operator who sells processed machinery in the trade name of D.

On January 2015, upon introduction of E, the Plaintiff purchased KR-100 air ice ices (hereinafter “instant machinery”) from the Defendant for KRW 57,200,00 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and the same year.

1. 16. 20 million won for down payment, and the same year; and

3. The remainder of 18.37 million won was paid in full.

B. The Defendant delivered the instant machinery to the Plaintiff on or around March 2015, and the Plaintiff returned the instant machinery to the Defendant on or around June of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded on the premise that the instant machine was able to have the diameter of the machine cut to 1,000. However, the instant machine was able to have dumped up to 720 in diameter, and thus, the Plaintiff expressed its intent to cancel the instant sales contract and returned the said machine.

Then, the Defendant, when paying the additional amount to the Plaintiff, intended to exchange it with another machine capable of reducing 1,000 woms in diameter. However, the Plaintiff refused to receive it due to defects in the machinery, and the Defendant again agreed to exchange it with the bee level ice straw, but did not deliver it ultimately.

Ultimately, the instant sales contract is deemed to have been terminated by the Plaintiff’s return of the instant machinery. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the sales price of KRW 57.2 million to the Plaintiff as the duty of restitution.

B. Although the Defendant’s assertion that the instant contract was conditioned on the condition that the instant machine can have been cut up to 1,000 wirs in diameter, the instant machine has a performance that can have been cut up to 1,000 wirs in diameter, and thus, the Plaintiff has a performance.