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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

However, around September 2016, the Defendant asserted that the power of the 30-year freezing power supplied by the Plaintiff was only 25 miles, and the Plaintiff demanded the replacement of the said machinery.

Accordingly, the plaintiff was replaced by the above machines, but the replacement cost of KRW 25,980,00 was required.

However, as the plaintiff confirmed on November 14, 2016, there was no problem with the power of the machinery supplied by the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the defendant, despite the delivery by the plaintiff of any of the above-mentioned machinery, has caused the plaintiff to replace it as if there was a problem with the power of the above machinery. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining 23,680,000 won, excluding the 2,300,000 won discharged by the defendant, out of the expenses paid by the plaintiff to replace the above machinery.

2. According to the facts that the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to supply the 30-powered freezings around August 2015, there is no dispute between the parties, and according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 6-1 and 2, the machinery that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the 30-powered freezings is “HGZ7/1620-4” and the rated output of the said machinery is “25kW/34 Emb.”

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1, 2-1, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, namely, “the term output of the above machinery (type: HGZ7/1620-4)” is “25 mast,” and the transaction of the above machinery is ordinarily deemed to be based,” and therefore, the term “this machine’s term output” is “25 mast, so long as 30 mast,” respectively.