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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant imports a set of Damond amount from the United Kingdom C company and sells it in Korea.

B. On July 15, 201, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 242,000,000, 242,000, a number of 3.11 Capitals in the store operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant store”) in the D department store (hereinafter “instant store”).

C. On July 26, 2011, the Plaintiff returned to the U.S. on August 5, 2011, when he/she worn the instant Damond Rolod and went back to the United States.

On September 1, 2011, the Plaintiff sought to the instant store with the instant multimond counter site. There was an employee E carefully observed the instant multimond counter, and notified that the instant multimond’s occurrence occurred and then, the exact state of the occurrence could be seen as having undergone a close inspection.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested confirmation of the possibility of AS, etc. while taking charge of the Damond Ban of this case.

E. On October 7, 201, E observed the instant multimond as specialized equipment at a specialized company, and confirmed the following three microscophym (as the parties concerned are referred to as “prosp,” hereinafter referred to as “prosp”). On October 7, 201, E notified the Plaintiff that “after the close inspection, the phenomenon “after the close inspection is found” is found in the total of three parts, namely, three repair methods; (1) method in the Republic of Korea; (2) method in the United Kingdom; (3) method in the United Kingdom; (2) method in the multimonthing; (3) method in the multimonthing frame; and (4) method in each way, namely, method in which the expenses and expected repair period are presented.

F. On February 13, 2012, the Plaintiff did not determine whether to accept it and the method thereof, but would wear a siren in the instant case.

After that, the Plaintiff goes to the instant store around October 19, 2012.