1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that produces automobile parts and supplies them to Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. and the first cooperators of Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “SAAW”), and the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company that engages in the manufacturing business, design and retail business, such as automobile parts, type of delivery, etc.

Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Company, Defendant D is the inside director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C and Defendant D are the married couple.

B. As the transaction with the “E”, which supplied the part of the parts of the automobile that the Plaintiff produced and supplied, was interrupted, the Plaintiff, from January 2013, received the supply of the part of the launch for the automobile parts from the Defendant Company, which supplied the part of the parts for the automobile parts to the Plaintiff from Hyundai Motor NFHHH, in the process of physical display with the replacement company.

C. Accordingly, around September 2013, the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant Company a total of 96 gold bars, including name ARRES ASY-FR DDR and LH/H (hereinafter “instant gold model”). The Defendant produced and supplied the Plaintiff with the launch portion for automobile parts by using the instant gold model, and the Plaintiff assembled the said launch portion and supplied it to the Korea-Japan Co., Ltd. (the first co-manager).

Around August 27, 2014, the Defendant Company refused to return the gold sentence in this case while the Defendant Company discontinued its business due to the Plaintiff’s loss incurred under the supply contract for the supply of the withdrawn portion, and thus refusing to supply the withdrawn portion. Around August 27, 2014, the Defendant Company paid KRW 3.2 billion to the Defendant Company’s factory or paid KRW 1.4 billion operating loss, and notified the Defendant Company of the instant gold sentence.

E. On August 30, 2014, the Plaintiff mobilized the freight truck and came to possess the gold punishment of this case in the Defendant Company’s factory, and failed as the Defendant Company’s lower judgment, and on September 1, 2014, an agreement is reached between the Defendant Company and the following.