1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 and its amount from November 21, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff operates a trade name “C” and the Defendant operates a printing business with the trade name “D”.

B. On July 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the content that “the Plaintiff shall provide the Defendant with the purchase cost of KRW 25 million and KRW 25 million for one printing machine necessary for printing work, the Defendant shall purchase the printing machine with KRW 25 million and then printing work, and when printing work is completed, the Plaintiff shall return the printing machine to the Plaintiff.”

C. Accordingly, on July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant at the printing cost, KRW 5 million on August 22, 2014, KRW 5 million on September 12, 2014, KRW 25 million on September 16, 2014, and KRW 25 million on September 20, 2014, and KRW 25 million on September 20, 2014. The Defendant purchased one of the printing machines at the said KRW 25 million (hereinafter “the instant printing machine cost”).

Since then, the plaintiff suspended the production of the above product, and demanded the defendant to return the printing machine.

E. However, the defendant does not return the above printing machines to the plaintiff until now, the above printing machines do not belong to the defendant's place of business, and their present location cannot be confirmed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), testimony of witness E at the trial, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the above facts, the non-performance impossibility refers to the case where the debtor's performance cannot be expected in light of the empirical rules or transactional norms, rather than simply an absolute and physical impossibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da22850, Jan. 24, 2004). According to the above facts, the defendant must deliver the above printing machine to the plaintiff according to the above contract, and the defendant cannot expect the delivery of the defendant at present. Thus, the defendant cannot expect to the plaintiff.