1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "The entries and images of evidence Nos. 5, 17, 18, and 10, 21, and 22" of No. 7-7 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: "each entry and image of evidence No. 5, 17, 18, 26, and 27 and each entry of evidence No. 10, 21, 22, and 28 are as follows; No. 8 of the judgment of first instance is as follows; No. 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as mentioned below with respect to the newly asserted matters at the court of first instance under No. 7-7 of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part of judgment] On the other hand, the Plaintiff uses the abbreviationd name established in the first instance judgment below the technology of this case as it is.

The instant contract asserts to the effect that it is invalid because it is a technology which is impossible to commercialize from the time of this contract, since it is aimed at providing benefits, which is the original impossibility of performing.

In full view of the various circumstances shown in the pleadings in the instant case, including (i) the examination report of the Japanese Maritime Testing Association was issued on April 15, 2013 with respect to the instant refuel, (ii) the Korea Maritime Testing Institute’s test report was issued on May 6, 2013, and (iii) the E completed patent registration (registration number: P) with respect to the instant technology as the name of the “O” invention on November 5, 2013, and (iv) the completion of patent registration (registration number) with respect to the instant technology, although it appears that the instant technology remains considerably in commercialization, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant technology was originally impossible in light of its technical and scientific perspective, or of its social trade concept, or there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiff has properly rescinded the contract of this case based on the defendant's non-performance or delay of performance which the plaintiff failed to commercialize the technology of this case, and the defendant shall return the plaintiff's investment to the plaintiff.