1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 56,00,000 and its KRW 20,000,000 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) shall have the effect on May 15, 2015.

A principal lawsuit or counterclaim shall be deemed to be a same.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant and “C” (hereinafter “instant machinery”) to purchase KRW 66 million in total, including KRW 44 million (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and installation cost 20 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 6 million to the Defendant as the down payment on the day of the instant sales contract, and paid KRW 20 million on May 15, 2015, and KRW 20 million on June 29, 2015, respectively.

C. On June 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) transported the instant machinery to the Plaintiff; and (b) on July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the main text of Article 580(1) of the Civil Act and Article 575(1) of the Civil Act, the buyer may rescind the contract in cases where the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved due to defects in the subject matter of the sale.

In full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by taking into account the entire purport of pleadings as a result of appraiser D’s appraisal, namely, the machinery of this case was in the state of failure at the time when the Defendant transported and installs the Plaintiff’s factory, and thus, the installation work was interrupted in the middle of that period; the machinery of this case appears to have not been operated for a long time; it is not easy to repair the defective part; considerable expenses are required; even if repaired, it is deemed that there is a defect in the machinery of this case which is the object of the contract of this case and the purpose of the contract can not be achieved.

For this reason, the fact that the copy of the preparatory document dated June 13, 2016 containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the instant sales contract was delivered to the Defendant on March 11, 2016 is recorded.