1. The defendant's appeal and the claim for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. Return of appeal costs and provisional payments.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except where the defendant adds the judgment under Paragraph 2 as to new arguments in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant prepared a purchase contract (Evidence A 1) between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

However, Article 5(1) of the General Conditions for Goods Purchase Contract attached to the contract provides that "the supply and installation of goods shall be supplied and installed within the date and at the expense of the plaintiff, and the defendant shall undergo an examination pursuant to the provisions of Article 13 of the General Conditions." However, until December 10, 2015, the plaintiff did not supply or install the goods to the defendant or undergo an examination by the defendant. (2) Article 6(1) of the same Act provides that "the plaintiff shall submit the test report or type approval report to the defendant at the time of delivery after consultation with the defendant before conducting the examination with respect to the main goods to undergo the examination, type approval, etc.," and there was no fact that the plaintiff submitted the above test report, etc. to the defendant. (3) In light of Article 11(3) of the same Act, although the plaintiff agreed to deposit the cash or defects equivalent to 5% of the contract amount at the time of the defendant's request for deposit of the cash or defects guarantee insurance policy to the plaintiff, it shall not be viewed that the plaintiff can only assist the plaintiff in the actual form of the contract.

Therefore, the purchase contract of this case is a false declaration of agreement.