1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an aggregate extraction business and a company aimed at crushing aggregate, etc., and the Defendant is a company aimed at manufacturing industrial marina machines.

B. Around June 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made and supplied the Plaintiff with the “scopical screening machine”, which is a machine that the Defendant removes steel ingredients from sand sampling, and entered into a contract for production supply with the Plaintiff with the content that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 8,800,000 (including surtax) to the Defendant as the price for the goods.

(A) On June 23, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,000,000, which is a part of the price of the above goods to the Defendant.

C. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant manufactured and supplied the aforementioned self-employed selection machine to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant self-determination”). [The grounds for recognition] : (a) the absence of dispute; (b) each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2; and (c) Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant self-determination machine does not fall short of the product specifications and hourly disposal volume of the carbag and drawing that the Defendant presented to the Plaintiff, and only shows the rate of removal of the iron of 30%, which is much less than the ratio of removal of the iron of 80% guaranteed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff cannot achieve the purpose of the instant contract due to the defect of the self-determination machine. Therefore, the contract of this case cannot be concluded by the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint, and the Defendant’s assertion (Counterclaim) revoked the instant contract by delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint, and sought the return of KRW 4,00,000,00 for the part of the goods already paid. (Counterclaim) The Defendant manufactured and supplied the instant self-determination machine without any defect in accordance with the contents agreed with the Plaintiff, thereby fully performing

The defendant uses a strong sloping, which is more strong than that indicated in the car sloping.