1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Although the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unclear, it is not clear that the Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking the purchase price of the food treatment apparatus of this case.

On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with food treatment equipment equivalent to KRW 880,000 (hereinafter “food treatment equipment”) and provided the Defendant with the aforementioned food treatment equipment after having the Defendant sell the food treatment equipment, if the Defendant wishes to use it for 15 days and purchase it.

Since the Defendant continued to use the food treatment apparatus of this case even after the lapse of 15 days, it is obligated to pay 880,000 won and delay damages to the Plaintiff, which are the price of the food treatment apparatus of this case.

2. The Plaintiff’s provision of the instant food treatment equipment to the Defendant around May 13, 2015, and the fact that the price of the instant food treatment equipment is equivalent to KRW 880,000, is not disputed between the parties, or recognized based on the evidence Nos. 1 and 3.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the entire argument, namely, ① the defendant continuously demanded that the plaintiff recover the food treatment equipment of this case from the defendant around July 28, 2016, ② the plaintiff recovered the food treatment equipment of this case from the defendant around May 15, 2017, ③ there is no contract regarding the sales contract of the food treatment equipment of this case, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to purchase the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Ultimately, insofar as it is impossible to recognize the purchase agreement of the Plaintiff’s assertion, which is the premise of the Plaintiff’s claim (at least 15 days after the date of providing the instant food treatment equipment, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the sales contract was established on a conclusive basis by clarifying the intent of purchase after the lapse of 15 days from the date of providing the instant food treatment equipment).