1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a verbal contract with the Defendant to purchase one scrap machine (hereinafter “instant machine”) of KRW 29 million (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid down payment of KRW 11 million to the Defendant.

B. On June 23, 2017, the Defendant installed the instant machinery at the Plaintiff’s factory.

C. On July 4, 2017, a certificate of content was served on the Defendant on July 7, 2017, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to rescind the instant sales contract on the grounds of the instant mechanical defect.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (in the case of vegetable evidence, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded the instant sales contract on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s performance of the instant machinery was 2% of law rate, 98% of old premium rate, and 2 ton of vehicle scrap amount; (b) the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant machinery at the Plaintiff’s factory constituted 7.5% of law rate; and (c) the vehicle scrap amount was 400 kilograms.

Therefore, pursuant to Articles 580 and 575(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff is obligated to cancel the sales contract of this case. The Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff’s restitution to the original state following the rescission, and to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5 million for the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in order to attract the power necessary for the use of the instant machinery as compensation for damages.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not guarantee the performance of the instant machinery as alleged by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of the cancellation of contract on the ground of defects of the machinery of this case is without merit, and the plaintiff is obliged to pay the balance 18 million won unpaid to the defendant.

3. Judgment on the main claim

(a)the objective nature and performance that the object of the sale or purchase of defects is expected in terms of transaction norms;