1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company established on April 12, 2017 for the purpose of the water shoot manufacturing business, etc., and the Defendant is a stock company established on July 21, 2010 for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retail business.

B. The Plaintiff’s internal director B, as well as the Plaintiff, also operates both the Plaintiff and C as the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

C. B entered into a transfer and acquisition agreement with the Defendant on the instant product manufacturing and sales rights, etc. as the representative of C on April 21, 2017 (hereinafter “instant contract”) in the capacity of the Defendant’s representative.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against C and B seeking the payment of the balance under the instant contract (hereinafter “ separate lawsuit”) with the court 2017da75177. In the instant case, C and B asserted that the said contracting parties were the Plaintiff, but not accepted, and the dismissal ruling was rendered on April 24, 2018 and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B and the Defendant, the representative of the Plaintiff, agreed to have the Plaintiff as the parties to the contract, but thereafter, agreed to have the Plaintiff as the parties to the contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant contract on April 21, 2017.

However, at the time of the above contract, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff as to the sales amount and the number of agents transferred by the defendant, and did not perform the duty to hand over the agent under the above contract.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the rescission of the instant contract by serving a preparatory document as of September 14, 2017 or the written complaint of this case, and thus, the instant contract was lawfully rescinded, and the Plaintiff has already fulfilled its duty to restore to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant shall restore the plaintiff to its original state due to the rescission of the contract of this case.