1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts: (a) the part that was used as of February 2, 190 by the Defendant’s assertion of set-off or mutual-aid; and (b) the following amounts are the profits that the Plaintiff Company acquired by using the boiler of this case and must be returned to its original state due to the use of the boiler of this case; and (c) the amount that the Defendant should be deducted or set off from the purchase price to be returned by the Defendant, as the profits that the Plaintiff Company acquired by using the boiler of this case and should be returned to its original state.

① (2) From August 31, 2012, where the installation of three boilers was completed due to the failure to use the existing oil boiler, the amount equivalent to the oil cost saved by the Plaintiff Company from August 25, 2013 to July 25, 2013 (3) depreciation costs of KRW 181,94,000, and KRW 12,000,000, which were calculated three years elapsed from the use of the boiler by the Plaintiff Company, calculated as the number of years elapsed by the Plaintiff Company, in light of the purport of Article 548(2) of the Civil Act, where the contracting party bears the duty to restore due to the termination of the relevant legal doctrine, the contractual party bears the duty to return the amount returned by the seller to the other party, and the contractual party can return the amount equivalent to the profits accrued from the use of the boiler from the other party’s ordinary profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da16314, Jul. 26, 2001).