1. The Defendant: KRW 42,667,127, and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from November 30, 2016 to August 28, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling printed circuit boards, agreed to purchase a part of the used machine learning center (D (D (D (99)) manufactured by Japan C company (hereinafter “instant machine”) from the Defendant, to purchase 66 million won (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply). On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 42 million won out of the above purchase price to the Defendant.

B. On March 12, 2015, the Defendant installed the instant machinery at the Plaintiff’s workplace.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as a result of appraiser E’s appraiser’s examination on the Plaintiff’s place of business on March 12, 2015, the Defendant, after installing the instant machinery at the Plaintiff’s place of business on March 12, 2015, was inspected by F, which is the manufacturer company A/S of the instant machinery, and as a result, there was a defect in “spind run-out, main axis, z axis, and ttuning,” and the F re-checked the instant machinery on December 22, 2016, and prepared a report to the effect that “the defectiveness such as the above has not been improved, and there was no serious conflict with the instant machinery among the used machinery, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the normal purpose of appraisal could not be achieved by taking into account the following circumstances:

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s duplicate of the complaint stating the rescission of the instant sales contract is clear in the record on November 30, 2016, the instant sales contract was rescinded pursuant to the main text of Article 580(1) and Article 575(1) of the Civil Act.