The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a non-place manufacturer with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who operates a food processing machine for business in the trade name of “D.”

B. On April 12, 2018, the Plaintiff, via E, an agent for the Defendant’s sale and installation, is deemed to have only one food treatment machine for business purpose from the Defendant.

The term "the contract of this case" is "the contract of this case to purchase the purchase price of 19.5 million won."

FF Bank, Co-Defendant 1, Ltd., FF Bank on the same day as the defendant's mediation.

The installment financing agreement was concluded with respect to the installment cost of KRW 19.8 million of the instant machinery.

C. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the instant machinery for lack of treatment capacity, and the Defendant recovered the instant machinery on June 8, 2018.

Since then, from the Plaintiff’s account to the installment of the instant machine, KRW 51,627 on June 18, 2018, KRW 550,542 on July 10, 2018, KRW 550,000 on August 10, 2018, KRW 2,202,169 on September 5, 2018, and KRW 2,202,169 on the instant money.

) This was transferred to the account of the F Bank. [The facts, Gap's 1, 3, 4, 6 evidence, Eul's 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, which have no dispute over the basis of recognition.]

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of entering into the instant contract, the Defendant explained that the instant machine could have been treated by extinguishing food equivalent to 200 km a day. However, since the instant machine failed to be treated by 50 km a day, there is a defect in the instant machine.

For this reason, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant contract and returned the instant machinery to the Defendant on June 8, 2018, but transferred the instant money from the Plaintiff’s account to the installment. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the instant money and delay damages to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

B. There is no defect in the instant machinery, and the Plaintiff’s operating method of the manual.