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. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 100,000 of the middle presses 400 tons (2006 formula) and NC LeVer each (hereinafter “instant machinery”) from the Defendant, with KRW 10,000,000,000. Article 9 of the contract states that “The seller shall accept the content required by the Plaintiff when a fatal problem occurs after the installation of the contract.”

B. The Plaintiff was handed over by the Defendant around November 11, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. The parties' assertion

A. As a result of the trial run after the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant machine, the Plaintiff’s failure to normally operate the instant machine due to the leakage of the straw, the straw board was worn out, the leakage was serious due to the paralysis of the ballast, and the malfunction of part of the Roter’s contact point failure.

Since these defects fall under the “distinct problem” stipulated in the contract, the defendant must pay to the plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 14.9 million.

B. The defects asserted by the Plaintiff are merely capable of operating normally by replacing the expendable parts, and thus cannot be seen as “a fatal problem” as specified in the contract. Thus, the Defendant is not responsible.

3. In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that some of the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial (at the request of the Plaintiff, to check the defects of the instant machine, and to prepare a quotation on its repair details) can be found in the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment, the testimony of the above C alone, which seems to correspond to the Plaintiff’s assertion, has a defect that can be assessed as “a fatal problem” in the instant machine, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion that differs from that of the premise.

The plaintiff and the defendant in this case.