2. The appeal costs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates the business of manufacturing and selling automated machinery, and the Defendant is a company that operates the business of manufacturing and processing scrap metal.

B. On November 18, 2014, the Defendant: (a) requested the Plaintiff to replace the string ton of the compressors of the compressors (hereinafter “instant compressors”); (b) the Defendant’s strawing part of the compressors (hereinafter “instant compressors”); and (c) requested the Plaintiff to replace the string ton of the compressors.

The plaintiff re-assigned the existing fashion standard that the defendant was placed in the skin tons, and purchased the relevant specifications to the defendant, and subsequently repaired the replacement of the fashion with the defendant purchased.

(2) The Defendant paid 2,095,720 won to the Plaintiff following the first repair at the time of the first repair (hereinafter “the first repair”). The Defendant still requested repair to the Plaintiff on May 26, 2015, while there was a new phenomenon in the compressors after the first repair. As a result, the Plaintiff’s employees dismantled the compressors, and found that the inside of the compressors were flicked (hereinafter “the first breakdown”). Accordingly, the Defendant removed the parts of the pulse by expanding the inner diameter of the compressors from 0340 to 0350, and changed the part of the pulse by making it possible for the Plaintiff to use the re-repaired by means of a wide-scale pulseing.

(hereinafter referred to as “second repair”). The repair cost incurred from the second repair is KRW 6,96,00 (including surtax). D. Since one week has not elapsed from the second repair, there was a new problem that a new accident occurred from the compression of the instant compression (hereinafter referred to as “second breakdown”). The Defendant is the Plaintiff.