1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall list the attached list from the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

In the first instance court, the defendant filed a claim for the return of the mechanical cost based on the cancellation of the contract and the claim for damages based on the non-performance of obligation. The court of first instance rejected the claim for the return of the mechanical cost and the claim for damages.

However, since only the plaintiff appealed against the lost part, the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance is excluded from the claim for damages.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who engages in the business of manufacturing pressure-generating machines with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who engages in plastic manufacturing business with the trade name of “D.”

On January 29, 2010, the Plaintiff made PE ET with the Defendant and set up it at the Defendant’s place of business by April 20, 2010, and the Defendant paid 103,40,000 won (value added tax of KRW 94,00,000) to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant agreed to pay 30,000 won of the down payment, intermediate payment, 30,000,000 won until February 1, 2010, by March 20, 2010, to pay 34,000,000 won to the Plaintiff within 20 days after the trial run.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). On April 2010, the Plaintiff manufactured PE EET T (hereinafter “instant machinery”) as indicated in the attached list to Staff Habman, and was placed in the Defendant’s place of business, and the Defendant was conducting a trial on May 4, 2010.

On February 1, 2010, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 94,00,00,000 in total, including the sum of KRW 30,000,000 in intermediate payment, KRW 34,000 in total, and KRW 34,000 in balance, KRW 15,00,000 in June 1, 2010, and KRW 10,000 in July 7, 2010, and KRW 94,00,000 in total, on July 22, 2010.

After being supplied with the instant machinery, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to repair the defects due to the problems in the PE voltage exit produced by running several times. On June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s workplace and replaced the “83m/mal multiples” body, which is a component of the instant machinery, and replaced the body on September 16, 2010.

The defendant on November 5, 2010.