2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit: 9.0

A. On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase of the machinery listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machinery”) on KRW 105,00,000 (value-added tax separate) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid KRW 5,00,000 out of the purchase price on the date of the contract, and KRW 16,00,000,000 out of the purchase price on October 2, 2015, and paid the remainder of the purchase price with the financial lease from the Culture Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”), on October 5, 2015.

On the other hand, on October 6, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 11,00,000 to Nonparty C as the introduction fee which arranged the instant sales contract.

B. On October 2015, the Plaintiff was found to have a defect or defect that could not be used without repair on the instant machine, while the Plaintiff was using the instant machine in delivery. As a result of the inspection, it was found that the instant machine had a defect or defect that could not be used without repair.

C. On October 17, 2015, when the Plaintiff asserted that there was a defect in the instant machinery, the Plaintiff’s factory was gathered in order to check the instant defect. On that spot, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that “the repair cost is changed due to the defect in the machinery,” and that “the Defendant would pay KRW 20 million (excluding value-added tax) at the repair cost of the instant machinery” to the Plaintiff.

On October 19, 2015, the Defendant remitted only KRW 15,000,00 to the Plaintiff as repair cost of the instant machinery.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 18 (including, if any, various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness G testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant machinery is Sfin.