1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 3, it is recognized that the Defendant sold to the Plaintiff, on November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff all of the purchase price, KRW 500,00,00,00 for navigation and navigation equipment (standard: DH608-120M, vehicle number: B), and other supplementary materials (hereinafter “the instant machinery”), and the Plaintiff paid all of the purchase price to the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. After receiving the delivery of the instant machinery from the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted that the safety inspection was conducted, and as a result of the safety inspection, it was found that there was any defect to the extent that the said machinery has to replace and repair the parts equivalent to approximately KRW 140 million.

Since the Plaintiff knew that there was a defect in the instant machine, and sold it to the Defendant, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 31,692,147, out of the repair cost of the instant machine.

In addition, after receiving the instant machinery from the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to lease the instant machinery to Nonparty Co., Ltd., the period required to repair the instant machinery has long run.

Therefore, in the case of the lease of the instant machinery at KRW 65 million, the remainder of the cost (such as personnel expenses, lodging expenses, food expenses, travel expenses, etc.) incurred when the machinery was leased should also be compensated for.

B. The Plaintiff is claiming damages against the Defendant, who is the seller of the instant machine, based on the warranty against defects.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that Article 3 of the sales contract concluded with respect to the machinery of this case provides that "the defendant shall complete the examination before the date of acquisition, and shall not be held responsible for the guarantee of this article after the date of acquisition," and it is reasonable to regard the machinery of this case as a special contract exempting the defendant from warranty liability.