1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court of first instance deleted 10 pages 4, 14, 5, and 17 of the first instance judgment (the part concerning the judgment on the claim of the principal office). In addition, the reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment; and (b) see it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[B] According to the above facts, the Defendant, as the seller of the instant machinery, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to nonperformance of the contract on sales and purchase of the instant machinery, barring any special circumstance, since the Defendant violated his duty to clearly explain the lubrication amount of the instant machinery by allowing the Plaintiff to injecting lubation short of the necessary quantity of the instant machinery in violation of the duty to explain the lubation amount as the seller of the instant machinery, etc.

2) However, the limitation on liability did not take a measure to confirm the accurate lubial amount to be injected into the instant machine by confirming or questioning the Defendant before the operation of the instant machine. In the course of the operation of the instant machine, the Plaintiff did not examine whether the amount of lubial weight was sufficient when observing the lubal personal (the device showing the lubal circulation of the lubal lubal lubal lux in the inside of the lubular lubal lux, and the device showing the lubal lubal lubal lux in the course of the operation of the instant machine, and the Defendant’s liability for damages was limited to 50% of the amount of damages, taking into account the Plaintiff’s negligence, and further, the scope of the Defendant’s liability for damages was limited, without identifying the cause.

The plaintiff, 1.