1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part added by the Defendant asserts that since the number plate was lost after the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant cargo, the Plaintiff cannot rescind the instant sales contract. However, it is not permissible for the Defendant to have the right to claim restitution due to the rescission of the contract under the good faith principle or the principle of fairness that the content of the right can be restricted as it is equivalent to offsetting negligence in damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da34143, Oct. 13, 2014) on the ground that the Plaintiff provided part of “the cause” as to the right to claim restitution due to the rescission of the contract, which is the cause for the rescission of the contract. In addition, according to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 9, the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of the instant cargo number plate is deemed to be part of the Defendant’s right to claim restitution, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.