1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,695,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from May 25, 2017 to December 18, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who contracts and leases construction machinery with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a company that carries on the manufacturing and sales business, etc. of amancheon-style Construction Tools.

B. On August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the mobile strings (hereinafter “instant machinery”) of KRW 503,80,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and received delivery of the instant machinery around October 2013.

C. Article 4 of the instant sales contract provides, “The warranty period shall be 12 months after the operation of equipment or 2,000 engine operation hours, and where any defect occurs due to a manufacturing defect during this period, the Defendant shall replace and repair the parts (limited to the use of D net government goods at the time of the use of equipment).”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On December 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the machinery of this case was operated within 12 months, and around the start of the machinery of this case, defects are discovered automatically from leaving the start of the machinery of this case. Moreover, the Defendant is liable to repair the defects under Article 4 of the sales contract of this case as the gold defects occurred within the warranty period. However, the Defendant did not repair the defects.

Therefore, the Defendant asserts that, as a result of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation, the repair cost of the instant machinery 850,000 won (the result of appraiser E’s appraisal), 79,230,000 won (the result of appraiser E’s appraisal supplement), and 17,200,000 won (=430,000,000 x 4%) of the exchange value reduction of flass exchange value of the instant machinery due to the Plaintiff’s replacement of flass of the instant machinery, the Plaintiff would have caused a decrease in exchange value of the instant machinery even if it replaces the flass of the instant machinery. 43,00,000 won for new products of the instant machinery.