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

A. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the Plaintiff, manufacturing 232 million won in the price of the fire fighting machine and its ancillary equipment to the Plaintiff and supplying them to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

On the day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant as the down payment under the above contract.

B. On February 27, 2017, the Defendant manufactured fire engines and auxiliary equipment and delivered them to the Plaintiff.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made and delivered as above, which caused a defect that makes it impossible to produce a fire fighting unit. For that reason, the Plaintiff, around November 21, 2017, sent to the Defendant a certificate of the content that the Plaintiff would cancel the instant supply contract, thereby cancelling the said supply contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the down payment already paid to the plaintiff as the restitution to the original state, 50 million won, and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff, on the ground of the defect in the fire fighting machine supplied by the Defendant, rescinded the instant supply contract. As such, the defect in the fire fighting machine, which can be the requirement for rescission, is premised on the fact that the fire fighting machine failed to meet the quality stipulated in the supply contract, and the degree of such defect exceeds the extent that it could not achieve the purpose of the contract.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (including the testimony of the witness C) is insufficient to recognize that it falls under the above cases in the fire fighting machine manufactured and delivered by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, as indicated in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the normal transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued for a considerable period, even after the delivery of the fire fighting unit of this case.