All appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

purport.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2 of the second page "the washing machine of this case" shall be read as "the washing, drying, and packinger (hereinafter referred to as "the washing machine of this case") entered in the attached list"

P. The third party 11 of the 3rd party stated that “A defect occurred” was “the plaintiff cancelled the contract of this case on the grounds of the defect, and also dismissed the contract of this case on the grounds of the defect.”

A. The third-party 18 to 20 parts are once again described below.

every part of the statements and images of Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, and some of the testimonys E and F are insufficient to acknowledge that there is a defect in the washing machine of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument about the right of rescission is without merit.

In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9, several persons present at the time of the test operation of the instant washing machine on December 14, 2017, and at the time the defendant would remove the instant washing machine at issue.

In addition, as to whether the Defendant agreed to remove the washing machine of this case under a condition without exception, some of the statements in Gap evidence No. 10, witness E and F, are inconsistent with the front evidence, and there is no sufficient support for other objective data to the extent that it is difficult to doubt the credibility of the evidence. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant agreed to remove the washing machine of this case without any condition by trusting the above evidence.

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff's argument about the right to rescind agreement.

§ 21 of the first instance court shall be deemed to be the court of first instance.

A. In a case where: (a) the first instance court’s sentencing of the 4-party 8-party 8 is deemed to be “the sentencing date of the first instance court”; and

2. Determination of the first instance court is justified.