1. As to KRW 66,500,000 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its KRW 38,000,000 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on October 28, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of crops (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the Defendant, with the content that the Defendant would manufacture and supply Asan City-si-si-type-type-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-

B. In accordance with the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 38 million on October 28, 2016, and KRW 28.5 million on December 5, 2016, and KRW 6.5 million on December 5, 2016.

C. Although the Defendant manufactured the instant machinery, but failed to complete 8 to 10 shocks and packagings per minute on the package of 750g, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to postpone the delivery date on the grounds that the instant machinery falls short of the specifications stipulated in the instant supply contract. On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content demanding the supply of the instant machinery.

On April 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the instant machinery to the foregoing factory, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was conducting the trial operation of the instant machinery.

On the other hand, on May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content to the effect that the instant machinery was not operated, thereby claiming damages.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff is unable to normally operate due to the defects in the instant machinery supplied by the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff rescinded the instant supply contract by serving the duplicate of the complaint of this case on the grounds that the objective of the instant supply contract cannot be achieved, and that the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of the down payment and intermediate payment, 65 million won, and interest or delay damages paid from the Plaintiff as restitution according to the termination of the contract.

The Defendant is normally at the time of trial run from June 2017 to October 2017.