1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s conclusion of the instant mechanical sales contract and India 1) The Plaintiff is deemed to be the machinery listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant machinery”).

(1) The sales contract is to purchase the price of KRW 12 million (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) and to purchase the price of KRW 10 million (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”).

(2) Around January 2015, the Defendant leased the factory building (in person, Seo-gu F) of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) operated by D (hereinafter “E”) to the Defendant on the same day.

Around January 10, 2015, the Defendant delivered the instant machinery to the head of the foregoing factory H designated by the Plaintiff.

B. On February 26, 2016, E and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not take the instant machine despite the termination of the lease agreement on the instant mechanical equipment H, and on February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the vehicle and damages, and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the storage fees.

(This Court Decision 2016Gahap51633). On July 19, 2016, the conciliation was concluded between E and the Defendant that “the Defendant shall use the instant machinery and pay KRW 5 million to E by August 31, 2016. If the Defendant fails to use the said machinery, the amount of damages calculated in the ratio of KRW 500,000 per month from September 1, 2016 to the completion date of the operation and compensation for delay shall be paid.”

C. On the one hand, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on May 17, 2016, claiming that the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Defendant’s incomplete performance or non-performance, and that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking reimbursement equivalent to the amount of damages that the Plaintiff should pay to E.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 1.5 million out of the purchase price of the instant machinery, and that the purchase price against the Plaintiff.