1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that, if the Plaintiff purchased pharmaceutical bags manufacturing machinery, it would make and use pharmaceutical bags while manufacturing them, and supply them to the Plaintiff at cost.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff purchased and delivered the manufacturing machinery of middle and high-class plastic bags (hereinafter “instant machinery”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant repaired it and manufactured a pharmaceutical bag using the instant machinery while operating “D” at a store located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant store”).

C. On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) drafted a written statement of performance stating that “The ownership of the instant machine exists on the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant promised to use the instant machine on the condition that the Plaintiff returned the instant machine without any demand at any time; and (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendant mutually stated the contract at the level desired by the Plaintiff, which appears to be a clerical error, although the contract appears to be a clerical error,” and that “the Defendant shall faithfully fulfill the conditions specified in the contract when using the instant machine as an agent; and (c) if the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Defendant arises, the Defendant is entirely responsible for the Defendant; and (d) the date of its preparation was retroactively written on June 11, 2009.

On May 29, 2014, the defendant filed a report on the closure of the above "D".

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As to the claim for damages, the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff wishes, shall restore the instant machinery to its original state and return it. However, the Plaintiff may not manufacture a medicinal bag as a result of requesting the Defendant to return the instant machinery on or around March 2014 and ascertaining the condition of the instant machinery.