1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of C concrete mixtures trucks registered as the Plaintiff’s owned (hereinafter “instant truck”) around July 1998, which were released on or around March 1995.

In 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair the accelerator on the ground that water leakage and noise were generated during the accelerator of the instant truck, and the Defendant received KRW 800,000 from the Plaintiff and replaced and repaired the accelerator (hereinafter “the first repair”).

B. On March 11, 2015, when one year has elapsed since the date of the first repair, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair at a higher level of the accelerator, and the Defendant received KRW 880,000 from the Plaintiff and received KRW 880,000 from the Plaintiff and accepted the accelerator (hereinafter “second repair”).

After the second repair, the Plaintiff requested repair to the Defendant on the ground that the water leakage and noise continue to occur at the speed of the instant truck, and the Defendant received KRW 825,00 from the Plaintiff on April 16, 2015 and received KRW 825,00 from the Plaintiff on April 16, 2015, “three-dimensional repair”.

(C) Even after the third repair, the Plaintiff demanded repair from the Defendant on the ground that water leakage and noise have continuously occurred during the speed of the instant truck, and the Defendant changed the speed from May 2015 to July 2015 without compensation on three occasions. D) The Plaintiff continued to request the Defendant to change the speed of the instant truck on the ground that the water leakage and noise have occurred during the speed of the instant truck. However, the Defendant rejected the request for replacement of the speed of the Defendant on the ground that there was no ground for dispute over the recognition. [In the absence of any ground for dispute over the recognition, each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 10, and 11, and the vehicle appraisal and supplementation of the appraiser D by this court, the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal and supplementation of the appraiser D, the entire purport of the pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

At the time of the first repair, the accelerators installed on the instant truck was manufactured in Japan E company (hereinafter referred to as “Japan E company”). At the same time, only minor leakage phenomenon existed.