The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacturing business of semiconductor parts with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person engaged in the retail business of compact presses and industrial machinery with the trade name of “D.”

B. From around 2009, the Plaintiff purchased 39,000,000 compact presses from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant machinery”) and installed them in the Plaintiff’s factory, and used them until August 2014.

C. The Defendant continued to maintain and repair the instant machinery at the Plaintiff’s request from the time the instant machinery was installed at the Plaintiff’s factory until August 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, despite its continuous efforts to maintain and repair the machinery of this case, the Plaintiff had a duty to compensate for the costs incurred in repairing the machinery of this case or costs incurred in repairing the machinery of this case, and replacement costs incurred in repairing the machinery of this case, and replacement costs incurred in repairing the machinery of this case due to damage of 7,200,000 won and 52,50,000 won due to the defect, the Defendant has a duty to compensate for the damages incurred in repairing the machinery of this case or costs incurred in repairing the machinery of this case, or replacement costs incurred in repairing the machinery of this case due to damage of sfin.

(A) The Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff sought payment of the money stated in the purport of the claim to the Defendant is not clear, but the Plaintiff continued to use it for about five years after being supplied with the instant machine by the Defendant, and even if based on the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff continued to use it for about five years after being supplied with the instant machine. Thus, even if the Plaintiff purchased and installed a new machine replacing the instant machine around August 2014, taking into account the circumstances that the repair cost or maintenance cost was spent during the said period, or that the Plaintiff purchased and installed a new machine replacing the instant machine, the evidence Nos. 7, 8-1, 2, and 3 alone.