1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The basic facts of the claim: ① The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the mechanical design and assembly business; the Defendant (mutual name: C) is a supplier of automated machines; ② the Plaintiff designs and assembles a channel automatic supplier around May 16, 2016 and supplies the Defendant by no later than June 25, 2016; supply price of KRW 11 million for the design cost of KRW 5 million and for the trial operation cost of KRW 6 million.

F. Of value-added tax, 3.3 million won in down payment, 4.4 million won in the intermediate payment, 3.3 million won in the remainder, 4.5 days after the contract date, and 3.3 million won in the remainder, upon the Plaintiff’s supply of the goods, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant to receive each payment after completing an examination on the supply of the goods (the Plaintiff and the Defendant calculated the cost of manufacturing the said machinery as KRW 74 million in total. As above, the Plaintiff agreed to only design and assembly at KRW 1.1 million, and the remainder of KRW 63 million in the purchase cost and control cost of the parts was handled by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant purchased parts required by the plaintiff at his own expense and delivered them to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff used them and assembled the machinery.

(2) At the time of the above contract, the Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 3.3 million to the Plaintiff; ③ On July 18, 2016, exceeding the scheduled date of payment (in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff supplied the above machinery to the Defendant around July 18, 2016, regarding the day immediately preceding the date of commencement of direct repair as follows as the date of the supply of machinery; and the Defendant failed to pass an examination due to the occurrence of a defect in the floor not falling into the steel net for drying, etc. as a result of the trial run; ④ The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to modify the design for resolving the above problem; however, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to change the design, but the Plaintiff did not have any other design change, and the Plaintiff sent the e-mail to the Plaintiff to the effect that “I would not participate in the trial run in the front” around July 30, 2016.