1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

1. On July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) purchased a bet lease (the model name: C; hereinafter “the instant bet lease”); (b) 10,920,000 won from the Defendant; and (c) a large quantity of items, shocks (h) of the said bet lease; (b) a small quantity of items, shocks (e.g., g., e., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g. g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g.

Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,920,000 in total, KRW 1,080,000 in purchase price, KRW 1,080,00 in accordance with the seller’s warranty liability, tort liability, and tort liability, as the penalty for the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s disease

2. Determination on the claim of KRW 10,920,00 for purchase price

A. As to whether there was a defect in the instant re-lease, the seller bears the liability to indemnify the buyer for the defect caused by the defect in the event that the object of the sale lacks objective performance expected to be in common sense of transaction, or the seller lacks the nature scheduled or guaranteed by the parties. Legal restrictions or obstacles also constitute the defect in the object of sale and purchase. The existence of such defect must be determined at the time of establishment of the sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da18506, Jan. 18, 200, etc.) as of January 1, 200 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da18506, Jan. 18, 200) and evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 26 evidence Nos. 50 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and images of the instant re-lease, the Plaintiff may be found from each of the instant re-lease lease from the Defendant around July 13, 2019, 20000.

However, the Plaintiff.