1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff A is an intention to operate the Doese Doese Doese Doese Doese Doese, and the Plaintiff B is an intention to operate the Doese Doese Doese Doese

The defendant is an individual entrepreneur who sells a medical device with the trade name of "E" and is used for the imposition procedure.

B. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant placed used goods (including additional taxes) of a medical device (hereinafter “G”) for the imposition of “G” produced by the German FF company and sold one of the used goods (including manufacture in 2010) to the Plaintiff B in KRW 66,00,000, and the Plaintiff B paid the full amount of the purchase price to the Defendant.

C. On June 3, 2015, the Defendant sold to the Plaintiff KRW 66,00,000 (including value-added tax) one of the used products from G (Manufacture 2011) to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid the full amount of the purchase price to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 1 to 16 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's primary assertion: The defendant had H and I, one of its own business employees, 30 million won in actual and significant high price, and each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of this case, deceiving the plaintiffs of the status of their products or sold them at a high price without any responsibility despite the fact that there was a defect in the excessive use or part of the parts. Since the plaintiffs purchased heavy G, the plaintiffs of this case are revoked on the grounds of fraud or mistake, and the defendant is obliged to return each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of this

Preliminary assertion: The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiffs with correct information on the medical device of this case as an incidental obligation under each of the instant sales contracts, and caused damages equivalent to the difference between the actual market price and the sales price by deceiving the Plaintiffs.