1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 74,734,082 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from June 29, 2015 to July 12, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in construction machinery rental and contracting business, and the Defendant is a person who sells and leases construction machinery.

B. On March 7, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the effect that the Plaintiff would purchase construction machinery listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction machinery”) at KRW 610 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 540 million to the Defendant out of the above purchase price. Around April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the instant construction machinery in the name of the Plaintiff on the following day.

On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff undergone a regular inspection of the instant construction machinery at the Daegu Construction Machinery Inspection Office. The Plaintiff was judged inappropriate on the grounds of ① the fluor oil leakage, ② the fluor oil leakage, ③ the overfluor oil leakage, ③ the failure to operate the overfluor, ④ the failure to attach a special sign, and the same year from the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor on July 23, 2015.

9. 24. An order to maintain each construction machinery;

E. 1) The construction machinery registration certificate of the instant construction machinery is indicated as follows: (i) year 201; (ii) 10,650m in the length of the vehicle; (iii) total weight 41,40cm; (iv) 28.8m in the length of boom (the maximum length of an inspection board); and (v) the instant construction machinery is manufactured in 2007; (ii) the construction machinery was remodeled in 207; (iii) the boom boom was remodeled from six to five parts before the instant sales contract was concluded; and (iv) part of the back part of the body was cut.

Therefore, the actual state of the construction machinery of this case is ① 207 year of manufacture, ② 10,400m in the length of the vehicle, ③ gross weight of 40,00km, ④ 24.4m in the length of boom boom ( maximum length) and ⑤ boom 5m in the boom.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 7, and the ground for appeal

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 by the parties concerned is against the Plaintiff.