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 Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of publishing books, booking, and wholesale and retail business of learning sites. The Defendant is a Singapore company that operates books and magazines wholesale business.

B. A contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. 1) On April 2014, the Plaintiff is a letter of English education C (C; hereinafter “C”) published by the Defendant.

3) The Plaintiff’s agreement that the Plaintiff distributes and sells teaching materials in Korea (hereinafter “instant agreement”) is called the instant agreement.

(2) On July 3, 2014, in order to secure the performance of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the purchase price to the Defendant under the instant contract, the mortgage agreement was concluded between the obligee and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”) and the maximum debt amount of the Plaintiff, the obligor, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”).

After the conclusion of the contract, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring district court was completed in Seoul Southern District Court No. 30793 on the same day (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, No. 1, No. 1, No. 51, witness D, and E's testimony, the purport of the whole

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the teaching materials sold by himself were de facto impossible stocks, despite the duty under the good faith principle to inform the Plaintiff of the fact that the teaching materials sold by himself were de facto impossible stocks and sold as if he had market value. The Defendant got the Plaintiff to the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

(2) In order to ensure that C’s inventory of the teaching materials is transferred from the Plaintiff, the size of the teaching materials to be transferred was reduced and notified, and the Plaintiff also sold them to the Plaintiff with hiding the scheduled fact that the new market price was scheduled to be published. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s contract of this case concluded by the Defendant’s fraud is revoked. 2) The Defendant’s sales of C’s teaching materials are well sold in the domestic market.