1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance, the money which orders the payment below.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(In view of the allegations and evidence added in the trial, the fact finding and decision of the first instance court shall not be different). 2. The second instance court's decision on the 6th instance court's decision on the 7th instance court's decision on the 7th instance court's decision on the 7th instance court's decision

C. On April 11, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the machinery re-manufactured to the Defendant under the instant additional contract is recognized as above. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to achieve the purpose of the instant construction contract and the instant additional contract on the ground that there is a serious defect in the supplied machinery, and in light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to achieve the record of the evidence No. 35 and the appraisal result of the appraiser A at the trial.

It is difficult to evaluate that part of the construction has not yet been completed due to the completion of the main parts of the machinery or the main parts of the machinery, and there was a process to supplement the machinery of this case upon consultation between the plaintiff and the defendant.

① On April 30, 2013, the Defendant, using the instant machinery, held an annual meeting for pre-treatment of agricultural products in the presence of Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayors, etc.

② On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60,000,00 among the remainder of the instant machinery to the Defendant. According to the instant additional contract, the Plaintiff agreed to examine the remainder of the instant machinery after completing installation at the site and pay it after a trial run.

③ On July 8, 2013, the witness B of the first instance court, who supervised the manufacture of the instant machinery as an employee of the Agricultural Food and Food Research Institute, requested the Plaintiff to supplement the instant machinery under the title of the request for the supplementation of the facilities installed at Daejeon Central Office and the Jeon-Handling Facility.