1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed respectively.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around October 2009, the Plaintiff requested Defendant C to assemble and manufacture 110 items, such as engines, against the chassis number D, engine displacement 883, and Hadson Hadson Hadson Hadson Hadson Madson Co.

B. Until November 2010, Defendant C assembled and manufactured 110 parts on the so-called so-called so-called “the so-called “the so-called” set forth.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant Obaba” c).

From October 13, 2009 to March 25, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,300,000 to the account in the name of Defendant C or E designated by Defendant C, and paid KRW 3,00,000 to the color company F.

As the wife of Defendant C, Defendant B is the name of the business operator of the repair, assembly, and manufacturing company of the name “G” in the operation of Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is a defect in hand and in his own forests during the instant Otoba, which was remodeled at the request of the Defendant C, and such defect is not possible to achieve the purpose of the contract. As such, the Plaintiff cancelled the said contract under Article 668 of the Civil Act, and the Defendants are engaged in a partnership business, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to refund to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4.3 million for assembly and production costs and its delay damages.

Preliminaryly, the Defendants, even though they did not have expertise on the Ortoba, assembled the parts that are more performance than the completed goods, and deceiving the Plaintiff to remodel them into the Ortoba in this case, and received the manufacturing cost, so the Plaintiff would have cancelled the above assembly agreement and seek the return of the manufacturing cost.

3. The Defendants’ judgment on the ground of this safety defense are based on the agreement with the Plaintiff.