1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the reduction of the use of air conditioners (551 liter) for the collection of 2,50,000 won of air conditioners (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and deposited KRW 2,50,000 on the same day into an account in the name of the Defendant.

B. On December 28, 2016, the Defendant delivered one of the air conditioners for the establishment and use of the facilities of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant air conditioners”) to the Plaintiff on December 28, 2016, but the Plaintiff returned the goods that are different from the air conditioners ordered, and the Defendant currently keeps the said air conditioners.

C. On January 5, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document stating the rescission of the instant sales contract by content-certified mail.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asked the Defendant of telephone in relation to the air conditioners for the establishment and utilization of the Fund for the Establishment of the Fund (51 liter and model name: D Q57RNZ) of the Plaintiff Dae-Banan, and the Defendant issued an oral order to believe that both the air conditioners for the establishment and utilization of the facilities and the air conditioners for the establishment of the Fund and 51 liter products are the product of the same model and the product of the same type is the product of the same department store, department store, marina, and household electric product agency, respectively, only the difference between color and model name.

However, the air conditioners of this case are all different products from the model, function, size, and color of the air conditioners ordered by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff cancelled the sales contract of this case based on the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation under the sales contract, and the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 2.5 million and its delay damages paid by the Plaintiff due to restitution to its original state.

B. The Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that the air conditioners of this case sold to the Plaintiff are identical with the Plaintiff’s air conditioners model and its function, and only the color and design are different. The Plaintiff’s rescission of the sales contract is unreasonable as it delivered the air conditioners according to the sales contract of this case.

3. We examine the judgment, and the above evidence.