A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in advertising planning and publishing business, and Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company engaged in printing machine import and sale and maintenance business, and Defendant B was a representative director of the Defendant Company at the time of concluding the following sales contract.

B. On January 18, 2010, the Plaintiff and C-A-I-I-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-B-B-B-C-B-B-B-C-B-B-C-B-C-B-B-B-C-B-C-C-B-B-C-C-B-C-C

C. On July 30, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) requested and repaired the Defendant due to the defect in the Korean Brampet (hereinafter “SP”) installed in the printing machine of this case; (b) on January 11, 2013, when the defect occurred; and (c) requested repair to the Defendant on January 11, 2013; and (b) requested the first manufacturer to repair the instant detailed device after being transferred from the Plaintiff on January 2014; (c) the manufacturing company now discontinued its business; and (d) the location of the instant detailed device is not verifiable.

On the other hand, on May 30, 2006, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the additional parts of the printing machine (the model name: D3000S-6) from the Defendant and paid the purchase price in full.

E. On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a written notification to the Defendant stating that the instant detailed device had a defect over three occasions, and that the Plaintiff did not enter the said additional device entered into the Japanese product, which was entered on May 30, 2006, and received by the Defendants around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6, and 5.