1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the Plaintiff manufactures and supplies 2 SET (hereinafter “original contract”) manufacturing machinery (hereinafter “instant machinery”) with NAVEN glass, such as painting and drying, etc. (hereinafter “BE”) (hereinafter “instant machinery”). The main contents are as follows.

The Plaintiff received 64,500,000 won as down payment from the Natech.

Article 1 (Opening of Works)

1. Customer: C;

3. Payment period: The payment period requested by a customer company ( January 24, 2015);

4. Scope of application: AL TURN-KEY (design, manufacture, assembly, on-site SET UP, China SET UP);

5. Private supplies: 215,000,000 won, in case of the International Trade Association Article 2 (Contract Price): 15,000 won

B. On December 22, 2014, the contract made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (Evidence A 1) and the contract made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Evidence A 2) on the same terms as the original contract with Defendant B, and the contract written between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Evidence A 2) are entirely identical with the contract amount and Article 24 (Other Provisions).

(hereinafter “instant contract”) was concluded, but the contract amount was set at KRW 180,000,00.

The Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 54,000,000 to Defendant B according to the above contract.

C. On December 31, 2014, the Defendant Company issued a performance guarantee insurance policy, which is a contract bond under a supply contract, which is a “contract bond” under the main contract of the instant case on December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant contract guarantee”). D.

In the process of manufacturing the instant machinery by Defendant B, the Plaintiff was unable to deliver the instant machinery by the first due date of payment due to the reflection of the Natech’s requirements and design problems. Accordingly, the Plaintiff extended the payment period on January 31, 2015.

E. On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff and Naytech employees demanded the delivery of the instant machinery, which was being manufactured by Defendant B’s contractor D’s factory. Defendant B had the remainder.