1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was handed over the above construction machinery, after purchasing the tea number A; hereinafter “instant construction machinery”) from the Defendant for KRW 90XT Skid amounting to KRW 30 million.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers)]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff purchased the instant construction machinery from the Defendant, the Defendant guaranteed not less than 2 tons of the Plaintiff’s life-sustaining capacity of the said construction machinery, and agreed to purchase KRW 25 million from the Plaintiff when the life-sustaining capacity of the said construction machinery falls short of 2 tons.

However, the instant construction machinery purchased by the Plaintiff from the Defendant was not in fact equipped with two or more tons of human life capacity, and thus, on October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the purchase of the said construction machinery at KRW 25 million.

Therefore, pursuant to the above agreement, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 25 million and delay damages for the purchase of the construction machinery of this case.

B. In light of the judgment, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to purchase the construction machinery of this case from the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff and the Defendant had the capacity to support the construction machinery of this case less than 2 tons, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

[Plaintiff’s statement of No. 1 (Construction Machinery Sales Contract) stating that “In the event of a subsequent re-sale, five million won will be arranged at the time of no problem,” and this is alleged as the ground for a re-sale agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but it is insufficient to view that it is a re-sale agreement based on the human capacity of the instant construction machinery solely on the above statement of the phrase as the ground for a re-sale agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is reasonable.