1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 4:

On March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff is one operating husband C and B, and the Defendant was a company engaging in the business of manufacturing and installing materials in construction, and C who represented the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for painting machinery with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

On March 1, 2014: On March 18, 2014, the delivery date: KJE 6500-type Macota (hereinafter “instant new equipment”): 59 million won (including value added tax); 30% on the date of the contract; 40% on the date of the promise to pay part payments; and 30% on the remaining remaining 30% on the date of the promise to pay part payments; and the Plaintiff’s entry into the Defendant’s seat, and the payment will be made simultaneously.

B. The sales contract of the instant new machinery is added to the phrase “45 degrees of brooms and brooms including installation of brooms for brooms.”

C. On March 29, 2014, the Plaintiff received 7 million won down payment from the Defendant, and manufactured and supplied the instant new equipment to the Defendant on March 29, 2014.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is to claim against the Defendant for the payment of the remaining purchase price of the instant new goods and the delay damages therefrom. The Defendant: (i) the Defendant’s contract for the instant new goods supplied by the Plaintiff on October 23, 2014 in accordance with Article 580 of the Civil Act because there is any defect to the extent that the purpose of the contract could not be achieved; and (ii) even if not, the Plaintiff did not install a preparatory seal different from the agreement, the above package price of KRW 25 million should be deducted from the purchase price; and (iii) the Defendant did not supply the goods to LDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “LD”) as its customer because of the defect in the instant new goods and used machines supplied by the Plaintiff.