1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a textile machinery transfer installation company with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who operates a mechanical manufacturing company with the trade name of “D”.

B. On September 7, 2015, with respect to the instant machine (hereinafter referred to as “instant machine”), a mechanical sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “the instant sales contract”) was made within the limit of October 2, 2015, with the amount of KRW 24,320,00,00 (in addition to value-added tax, KRW 10,000,000,000, which is the Plaintiff, the buyer, the Defendant, the observer, the E, the observer, and KRW 24,320,00,000, under a contract.

C. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant machinery to the Young Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yyoung Industry”), and installed the instant machinery in the Young Industries. On the date of installation, defects occurred in the instant machinery and were returned.

On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff carried out maintenance and repair works for the 128 repair of the instant machinery, and the instant machinery was re- installed in the oil industry.

E. From November 2015 to December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff engaged in various operations, such as installation of contact rooms with the instant machinery, at the request of the relevant industry and the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1) Although the seller is indicated in the sales contract of this case as the Plaintiff, this is merely a seller with the consent of the Defendant as a relationship in which E is unable to issue a tax invoice because it is not registered as a business operator, and the person who actually sells the instant machinery to the Defendant is E. (2) The Plaintiff is entitled to receive the repair cost of KRW 50,000 per year from the Defendant, and completed the repair work for the 128 trend of the instant machinery.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remuneration cost of KRW 6,400,000 (=128 x 50,000) and the delay damages.

3 The United Kingdom Industry is the case.