1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. On February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion purchased from the Defendant, who operates a sports logistics company, a set of two parts each on the Internet (hereinafter “instant clothes”) the Adidas brand uniform and the Hadas’s brand uniform.

However, the above uniforms had a significant defect than 95(M) in ordinary dimensions.

Accordingly, on February 13, 2017, the Plaintiff requested a refund orally, and on the 15th of the same month, the Plaintiff returned the instant uniform, and demanded the Defendant to refund the instant uniform by content-certified mail.

Therefore, the instant uniform sale contract was invalidated due to the cancellation of order under the Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Etc. (hereinafter “Electronic Commerce Act”), or cancelled due to defects.

In addition, the defendant agreed at least to refund and exchange cargo, and the defendant proposed to return half of the purchase price. Therefore, the contract for the purchase and sale of the clothes of this case was rescinded.

2. The fact that the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, had shaling (to permanently indicate the name of the athletes, the name of the team at which they belong, and the number of the team at which they would wear the uniforms at each of the instant clothes) of the players who will wear the uniforms at the request of the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties.

However, Article 17(1) of the Electronic Commerce Act prohibits consumers from withdrawing subscription in cases where goods, etc. are destroyed or damaged due to reasons attributable to the consumer, against the will of the communications business operator. Since the clothes of this case are deemed to have been damaged due to the malfunction of a specific player’s name so that it is virtually impossible or considerably difficult to resell, the Plaintiff’s cancellation of subscription has no effect.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The determination of the claim for cancellation by the warranty against defects is consistent with water control 95 (M) sets out by Adimans (the manufacturer).