1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 47,874.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that operates a power plant leasing business, etc., and the Defendant is a legal entity that runs dredging business, recycling aggregate sales business, etc.

B. On February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the lease of 16,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax) and for the lease period from February 22, 2016 to March 21, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and delivered the instant development period to the Defendant by receiving KRW 17,60,000 as rent from the Defendant on the same day.

C. From February 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) loaded the instant power generator on the lower line; and (b) used sea sand gathering equipment in the vicinity of Incheon for the purpose of supplying electricity to the equipment of collecting sea sand.

On February 28, 2016, there was an accident that damages the engine due to the heating of engines (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to the lack of engine coolings due to the lack of engine coolings from the instant power generator around February 28, 2016, and the Defendant became unable to use the instant power generator thereafter.

The Plaintiff was handed over by the Defendant on May 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s instant power generator was damaged as the engine was reduced by 1/3 of the cooling cooling water at the time of the instant accident. The instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s failure to become aware of the lack of the engine cooling cooling water at the beginning, or due to the Defendant’s failure to become aware of the sign and condition of engine heating early at the time of the instant accident.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the damages incurred by the defendant's care due to the primary breach of the duty to preserve the leased object.