The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2017, upon introducing the Defendant from C, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purchase of three tons of fishing vessels of plastic reinforced (FRP) in the cost of KRW 72 million (hereinafter “the instant contract”).

B. Based on the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid 72 million won to the Defendant by December 14, 2017, and received delivery from the Defendant of a fishing vessel which was built under the instant contract (hereinafter “instant fishing vessel”) on December 14, 2017.

(c)

The “fishing vessel building order” regarding the fishing vessel of this case as of September 6, 2017 in the Jeju Market is indicated as “9.10m in length, 2.7m in width, 0.6m in depth, 3 tons in gross tonnage,” etc.

(d)

In that sense, the “certificate of loading” for the fishing vessel of this case from December 18, 2017 at Jeju market is indicated as “9.00m in length, 2.7m in width, 0.5m in depth, 3 tons in gross tonnage,” etc.

[Grounds for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the depth of the instant fishing vessel actually built despite the Plaintiff’s agreement to build the depth of the vessel at a distance of 0.69 meters, the depth of the vessel was 0.59 meters and the depth of the vessel is insufficient.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to defects, for the costs of changing the depth of the fishing vessel of this case to 0.69m, KRW 40 million and delayed damages.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and witness Eul's testimony of the court of first instance, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, etc., the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone lacks objective nature that the fishing vessel of this case can have expected in light of trade norms or lacks objective performance in the contract of this case.