1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased two of the middle rubber pressurers from the Defendant at KRW 72,00,000 (Additional Tax Table).

B. The Plaintiff was running the said two rubber exhausters, and one of them (hereinafter “the instant machinery”) did not work properly as a bundd (part).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested repair after the delivery of the instant machine to the Defendant, and the Defendant replaced the instant machine with a new product, and on March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 6,350,000 (including additional dues) with the expenses for the replacement of the said gads (part expenses).

On the other hand, a sales contract made between the original Defendant is stated as follows: “The Defendant is responsible for the normal operation of the trial after the installation of the machinery. The mechanical warranty is for six months.” (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 2, 5, 7, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) In light of the special agreement of this case, although the defendant had a duty to repair the machinery of this case without compensation, he received unjust enrichment from the plaintiff as the repair cost, and the defendant must return the above unjust enrichment to the plaintiff. 2) Even if the defendant paid the above money, not unjust enrichment, pursuant to a separate repair cost payment agreement between the plaintiff and the original defendant, even if the defendant was to pay the above money pursuant to the separate repair cost payment agreement between the original defendant, the defendant needs to pay the repair cost by abusing the plaintiff's production schedule at the time, and the plaintiff is forced to pay the repair cost by abusing the plaintiff's production schedule at the time.

Therefore, the above repair expense payment agreement is null and void as it is a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to the plaintiff's old-age, or it was concluded by the defendant's coercion, and thus revoked.

(b) judgment 1 p.m. ;