1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the part of Article 4-B (No. 8, No. 19, No. 9, and No. 20) among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2 (2). Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Parts of the second instance changed;

B. The defendant's assertion was that the defendant could not achieve the purpose of the contract of this case due to the defect in the freezing of this case, and thus the contract of this case was cancelled in accordance with Article 668 of the Civil Code, and thus cannot respond to the claim of this case

According to the above facts, the purpose of the contract of this case is to install a freezing warehouse that maintains temperature below -20°C, and since the freezing of this case installed by the plaintiff is maintained at temperature above -20°C, there is a defect in the freezing of this case.

살피건대, 위 인정사실, 갑 제9 내지 12호증, 을 제4호증의 각 기재, 제1심 증인 D의 증언, 당심 감정인 G의 감정(하자)결과(이하 ‘당심감정’이라 한다) 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사정을 종합하면, 이 사건 냉동고의 하자는 유닛쿨러를 교체하는 방법으로 보수할 수 있고 그 보수비용이 과다하지 아니하다고 인정되는 점, 피고는 이미 이 사건 냉동고를 철거한 점(다툼 없는 사실) 등에 비추어 볼 때, 위 하자로 인하여 이 사건 계약의 목적을 달성할 수 없다고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 주장은 이유 없다.

1) The judgment of the court below is as follows. The temperature of the freezing of this case measured on December 14, 2015 is -20.2C, -18.8C, -20.1C, -19.8C when a certain period of time has elapsed, and 8,178Kal/h (i.e., the coolant of the freezing of this case). The temperature of the freezing of this case reaches -20C, 8,178Kal/h (i.e., the coolant).