1. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. On October 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C, an employee of Defendant C, who operates “D”, and the Plaintiff, with the Defendant C, to consult about the practical container maloting work and the manufacture of polytechnics, etc. on the dogmatic sculptures printed out by the Plaintiff 3D printing (hereinafter “instant sculptures”). On October 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant C, under which the Plaintiff would make one of polymans products and pay 1.6 million won.

In order to make a poly-product through the instant sculpture, first of all, it is the process to make the plastic container in the instant sculpture by inserting the plastic container, and then make the plastic container after separating it from the instant sculpture, and then make the reinforced plastic on the inside of the instant plastic container.

After the Plaintiff’s creation of the plastic compound as the instant sculpture provided, the Defendants destroyed the instant sculpture during its separation process, and thereafter raised an objection against the Plaintiff’s destruction of the instant sculpture on October 22, 2015.

【Ground for Recognition: Each description and photograph (including each number) of Gap evidence 6 to 10, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 3

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Defendants intentionally or negligently destroyed the instant sculpture, and the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 4 million, including the 3D modeling, printing work cost, KRW 18.150,000,000,000,000,000 won, which are entered into the instant sculpture.

B. The Defendants asserted that the instant sculpture was not destroyed by intention or negligence, and there was no agreement to return the instant sculpture as it is.

Furthermore, it does not cause damage to the extent claimed by the Plaintiff.

3. In light of the following facts, the evidence as seen earlier and the statement Nos. 5-1 and 2-1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is alone by intention or negligence.