1. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) purchased and sold the machinery listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a person who operates livestock pens in the following cities: the defendant is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of agricultural livestock machinery and general equipment under the trade name of "D."

On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff, instead of paying the down payment of KRW 25,00,000, purchased machinery and appliances listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 2 from the Defendant as well as 40,000,000, and agreed to transfer the down payment to the Defendant two ownership of the machinery, TMR mixing machines, and Moter as listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the Plaintiff, instead of paying the down payment of KRW 25,00,000, and the remainder KRW 15,000,000, to pay the Plaintiff simultaneously.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). On October 2, 2015, according to the instant contract, the Defendant delivered machinery and options listed in the separate sheet No. 2 to the Plaintiff. On the same day, the Plaintiff delivered the machinery listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the Defendant according to the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the gist of the plaintiff's argument as to the claim for main claim of the lawsuit as to the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case after hearing from Eul, an employee of the defendant, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, that "it may perform feed pay work by using the equipment listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the condition that the plaintiff owned in the machinery listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 2, delivered by the defendant, and the plaintiff was installed with a feed payer ( approximately 450km) owned by the plaintiff in the machinery listed in the separate sheet No. 2, delivered by the defendant, and actually operated the machinery listed in the separate sheet No. 2, while loaded with feed No. 500 km, the plaintiff could not perform feed pay work by checking

On the grounds of such defect, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair the defect by October 14, 2015, and did not repair the defect until then.