A. On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) entered into a contract with the Defendant to be supplied with the rash machine (hereinafter “instant machine”) as indicated in the separate sheet necessary for the manufacture of the product (hereinafter “instant contract”) from the Defendant to the supply price of KRW 79,090,907 (excluding value-added tax); and (b) paid in full.

B. On April 9, 2017, the Defendant received supply of the instant machinery from the manufacturer of Chinese materials, and installed it at the Plaintiff’s factory.

C. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the defects of the instant machine, and requested repair and partially repaired, but the replacement of the instant machine occurred.

- The occurrence of noise at the time of the movement of rasher without any strings on or around June 2017 - the occurrence of noise at the time of cutting around July 2017 - the occurrence of a valve which requires the operation of a valve and the occurrence of noise at the time of cutting around July 2017 - the outbreak of a hacker down due to the Zat when the Zat is lowered down at a low level during the work around August 2017 - the occurrence of a hacker’s stop during the automatic arrangement string work around September 2017 - there is no dispute over the phenomenon [based] caused by oil in the work territory [including the ground for recognition], Gap’s entries or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff caused serious defects in the instant machinery, thereby making it impossible for the Plaintiff to manufacture and manufacture the products using the said machinery, and thereby making it impossible for the Plaintiff to achieve the purpose for which the contract was concluded, thus cancelling the contract and seeking the return of the purchase price. 2) As a result, due to the defect in the instant machinery, it became impossible to manufacture the products by delivery of a copy of the collection, and requesting for the return of the purchase price. 2) In order to meet the payment period for the supply of the products, the Plaintiff suffered damages from requesting D for the processing of the products, thereby paying more than 10,000,000 won for the rental processing cost, and suffered damages from purchasing the re-manufactured materials as it was impossible to use the raw materials produced by the defective quality. As part of the compensation for such damages, the