1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is indicated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant.

1. The facts under the basis of the facts are either in dispute between the parties, or acknowledged based on Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including the branch numbers in the case of additional numbers), together with the purpose of the entire pleadings in the testimony of E by the witness of the first instance trial.

[1] The plaintiff is a corporation that manufactures and sells automobile parts, etc., and the defendant is a corporation that manufactures and sells electronic parts.

(B) The Defendant, as of January 2, 2012, had its trade name changed to “B” corporation. The Plaintiff’s representative director D concurrently held the Defendant’s representative director from July 6, 2005 to July 15, 201.

On May 30, 2011, during the said period, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to import the attached movables (hereinafter “instant machinery”) and sell them for KRW 375,708,014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

[2] The Defendant’s director E, along with the representative G of F, visited the U.S.A. S. A. S. A.P. factory located in Thailand to check the condition of the instant machinery, and reported it to D by the Defendant’s representative director.

After importing the instant machinery in Thailand on June 29, 201, the Plaintiff installed the instant machinery in the Defendant’s factory and delivered it to the Defendant upon completion of trial operation.

The Defendant paid 68,500,000 won out of the price of the instant machinery to the Plaintiff, and has possessed the instant machinery up to now.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff delivered the instant machinery to the Defendant pursuant to the instant sales contract, and the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the instant machinery, and the Plaintiff rescinded the instant sales contract.

Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to transfer the machinery of this case to the original state following the return or cancellation of the ownership.

B. The Plaintiff’s representative director D was concurrently the Defendant’s representative director at the time of concluding the instant sales contract, and the instant sales contract was concluded.