The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) was liable to pay the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the remainder of KRW 44,205,520, and delay damages therefrom, by setting off the damage claim of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder of the purchase price claim of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the amount equal to KRW 284,00,00,000, in view of the existence of defective defects, such as the lack of engine output, etc. in the instant vessel, and thereby, the decrease in the exchange value of the instant vessel was KRW 382,205,520.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of a sales contract, the defect in the subject matter of sale under Article 580 of the Civil Act and the scope of compensation for damages caused by the defect, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.