A. On September 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase VJ1638UV printing machines (hereinafter “instant machines”) at KRW 24 million (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant contract”), and agreed as follows.

The Defendant brought a model DGI PS1804), which is owned by the Plaintiff, and assessed the compensation as KRW 3 million (3.3 million if the value-added tax is included) and paid the remainder amount of KRW 21 million (excluding value-added tax) as the price for the instant machinery by the Plaintiff.

When a defect in output occurs, the equipment shall be returned and refunded to the contractual amount.

B. On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff received the instant machinery from the Defendant, and on September 23, 2015, paid KRW 23.1 million (the sum of value-added taxes at KRW 21 million after deducting KRW 3 million from the amount of 24.4 million) to the Defendant as the instant machinery price.

C. However, as the space printed out by the instant machine is light, the phenomenon occurred, and the Defendant’s employees repair a business trip, but the horse condition continued.

Ultimately, on October 26, 2016, the Defendant recovered and returned the instant machinery.

The Plaintiff consumed KRW 23,835,040,00, including the cost of the subcontractor’s payment of KRW 8 million due to the defect repair arising from the terminal image of the sheet that was printed out and constructed by the machinery of this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap's evidence 1 through 10 (including each branch number in the case of additional number), and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged in 1. Paragraph (1) of the rescission of the instant contract, it is reasonable to deem the horse image phenomenon generated from the output of the instant machinery as the defect of the instant machinery. Accordingly, on the ground of this, the instant contract was lawfully rescinded on December 27, 2016, on which the copy of the complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the instant contract was served.

B. Reinstatement 1.