2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the business of manufacturing and selling soft products.

C (hereinafter referred to as “manufacturer”) is a company that manufactures and sells Belgium, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant machinery”).

The defendant is a company that carries on trade business and service business by concluding an agency contract with the manufacturing company and acting on behalf of the manufacturing company for the conclusion of sales contracts and export business of the machinery of this case.

B. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff FIMOFER with the content that the instant machinery was sold for 208,400 milk.

On September 22, 2015, the original Defendant’s employees visited the manufacturing company to directly verify the instant machinery, and approved FIMFOFER to sell the instant machinery to 228,900 tons, and concluded a sales contract for the instant machinery between the Plaintiff and the manufacturing company (hereinafter “instant contract”).

On the date of conclusion of the contract, the Plaintiff paid the down payment to the manufacturing company 68,670.

C. Although the instant contract was included in the business trip of the manufacturer company for the performance test of the instant machinery, the manufacturer company rejected the instant machinery and completed the repair performance test on its own, the manufacturer company returned 17,000 pages for the expenses incurred in the said process.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number in the case where there are serial numbers), Eul evidence No. 5, witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not clearly disclose it to the Plaintiff even though it was a company that sells the machinery of the manufacturing company on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Defendant, as if the Defendant was a party to sell the instant machinery, deceiving the Plaintiff as if it was the party to sell the instant machinery. 2) The instant machinery did not reach the performance stipulated in the initial contract, and there were frequent defects, such as frequent breakdown.