2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is primarily based on the following: (a) one of the containers delivered by the Defendant, unlike the photographs sent by the Defendant, was ruptured in the joints part of the container, and there were significant defects in the subject matter of the instant sales, such as the gap of fire doors, etc.; (b) the instant sales contract was revoked; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 2,000,000, and KRW 50,000, and KRW 2,250,000, paid for the Plaintiff’s own rent paid to the Defendant, and KRW 2,00,000, paid for the Plaintiff’s repair of the container and for internal care.

(2) Preliminary, pursuant to Article 69 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant discovered any defect in the container of this case and notified the Defendant thereof, but the Defendant failed to perform the duty of delivery while refusing to replace the container of this case with other items. Since the instant container was sold to other items, the Defendant sought damages due to nonperformance of the obligation.

B. (1) Determination as to the claim for cancellation of the sales contract of this case (A) pursuant to Articles 581(1) and (2), 580(1), and 575(1) of the Civil Act, where the subject matter of the sales contract was designated as a kind, and there are any defects in the specific subject matter thereafter, the buyer may rescind the contract when it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract due to such defects, and the buyer may claim damages in a case where the defect does not reach the extent that the purpose of the contract could not be achieved due to such defects, and the buyer may claim damages in a case where the defect does not reach the extent that the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved

Here, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract due to the defect of the object.