매매대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of pleadings as a result of the request for appraisal to the first appraiser F, and G (the result of the request for appraisal to the first appraiser L is limited to the determination that the difference between quality and color is serious without presenting specific numbers, methods of measurement, and grounds for determination). It is difficult to believe that the results of the request for appraisal to the first appraiser L are serious in quality and color without presenting specific numbers, methods of appraisal, and grounds for determination.
The plaintiff is a company with the purpose of manufacturing, selling, repairing, etc., such as a reproduction machine, facsimile, etc., and the defendant is engaged in business such as printing advertising planning, designing, and printing output in the trade name of C from December 7, 1998.
B. (1) Since around February 2005, when the production and supply of digital printing machines began, the interest in the digital printing machines began to increase. From the Plaintiff’s business employees, the Defendant sought explanation that the digital printing market will change in the direction leading the digital printing machine, with interest to the digital printing machines, and then participated in the Plaintiff’s digital printing company’s head office M& corporation’s attendance at the product exhibition of the Plaintiff’s head office located at the east of Japan at the Plaintiff’s request around February 2006 and the Plaintiff participated in the Plaintiff’s digital printing company’s digital printing business held in Busan around March 2006.
(2) At that time, the Plaintiff advertised that the printed materials using digital printing machines have a quality similar to the printing of the printed materials. The Defendant, around April 2006, discussed the Plaintiff’s business employees and the operation of the printing business using the digital printing machines, etc., and then digitalized the printing business.