1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the part on "1. Presumption" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to using "the defendant" as "the plaintiff", and therefore, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 23, 2010, the Defendant delivered the instant device to the Plaintiff, but did not run the test, did not undergo an examination from the Plaintiff, and the wastewater collection and alteration did not bring about any wastewater collection and alteration.

Therefore, the defendant's obligation to deliver, install, and examine goods has been delayed or incomplete.

B. In addition, on June 17, 2011, the Defendant brought the genetic liquidation device, which is the core component of the instant devices, and did not deliver the instant devices to the Plaintiff, thereby violating the duty of delivery. The Defendant expressed its intention to refuse the return of the said genetic liquidation device to the Plaintiff.

This constitutes delay of performance, non-performance, or non-performance, as it violates the obligation to guarantee defects under Article 10 of the contract of this case.

C. The Plaintiff, upon the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, declared that the instant contract was legally rescinded or terminated on the grounds of nonperformance due to the Defendant’s fault.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 (i.e., KRW 40,000,000,000 for the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff, as part of the damages incurred by the Plaintiff’s failure to operate a dental plant) and damages for delay following the rescission of the instant contract.

3. Determination

A. One question is whether the instant contract has been rescinded due to delay of performance or incomplete performance, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is recognized that the Defendant did not undergo an examination without installing the instant devices.