1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 13, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant for KRW 5,000,000 the AScream Manufacturing Machinery (hereinafter “instant Machinery”).

(hereinafter “instant contract.” However, even though the Defendant obtained a loan from the instant machinery as collateral and had a balance of KRW 5,500,000 as of November 4, 2015, the Defendant concluded the instant contract by deceiving the Plaintiff.

In addition, the Defendant promised to install the instant machinery to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant contract, and to transfer and take over the method of using the machinery and the method of procuring the necessary goods, but did not comply therewith.

Furthermore, at the time when the Plaintiff received the instant machinery, there were some defects, such as partial destruction or malfunction, on the part of the said machinery, and it was impossible to use the said machinery as it was impossible to exchange the parts.

B. Accordingly, the plaintiff cancelled or cancelled the contract of this case with the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant must return to the plaintiff 5,000,000 won of the mechanical price of this case.

In addition, since the Plaintiff was unable to use the instant machine, and business losses amounting to 3,800,000 won (=20,000 won expected daily sales x 190 days from October 21, 2015 to May 2, 2016 on the date of receipt of the instant complaint), the Defendant is liable to compensate for the said losses.

Ultimately, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 8,800,000 (= KRW 5,000,000) and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the Defendant, first of all, did not notify the Defendant of the fact that the instant machinery was borrowed as collateral, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Rather, according to Gap evidence No. 2, the defendant borrowed KRW 6,980,000 from one Capital Co., Ltd. on February 5, 2015. On November 4, 2015, one Capital Co., Ltd. 5,602.