1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. In regard to cases where this Court applies for a stay of compulsory execution 2016 Chicago129, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a siren agreement with the Defendant (a model name f03015, hereinafter “instant machine”).

B. On July 9, 2016, the Defendant delivered the instant machinery to the Plaintiff. On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a siren agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on July 11, 2016, with the rental period of KRW 75,50,000, rental deposit of KRW 40,000, rental deposit of KRW 1,905,200, and KRW 1,787,610, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant siren contract”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant as a deposit.

C. On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a transfer security agreement with the Defendant on three other machinery owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned machinery”) for the guarantee of rental fee. D.

On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) as No. 236 on July 12, 2016 with respect to the instant siren agreement and the instant transfer security agreement.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant machines are defective.

Specifically, the following:

In order to carry out processing work by the machine of this case, the information entered in the course of other work shall be discarded, and the information entered in the course shall be discarded.

In addition, it is necessary to re-examine the crypted part of the processed part by rashing it by daily tearing it by showing the tear.

In addition, parts of the instant machinery were partially damaged.

On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the contract to the Defendant on the grounds of the foregoing defects, and returned KRW 40,000,000.

Accordingly, the defendant cannot terminate the contract because there is no reason to terminate the contract, and rather, the plaintiff did not pay rental fees.