1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2010, Nonparty Korea-China Ship Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-China Ship Machinery Co., Ltd.”) received services for automatic panel contact equipment in China from Nonparty Korea-China Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Korea-China”) under a contract for the supply of equipment, and ordered products to conduct the above services to Defendant Korea-China Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Korea”). Defendant Korea Ltd again ordered Defendant Sung Jin Jin Engineering Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Sung Jin Engineering”) to manufacture and supply the part of the oil pressure equipment, and Defendant Sung Jin Engineering Co., Ltd again ordered Defendant Sung Jin Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Sung Jin Engineering”) to manufacture and supply the part of the oil pressure equipment, and Defendant Jin Jin Engineering Co., Ltd again ordered the Plaintiff to manufacture and supply 176 parts of the oil pressure equipment, excluding the large amount of eight parts of the said actual women.

B. In early 201, the Plaintiff supplied 176 parts of the loaded goods ordered in sequence as above.

However, while Korea-China vessel machinery, etc. were at issue in the course of trial operation of the equipment adjoining to a panel in a Chinese local factory, and each company related persons involved in the production and supply of the equipment were analyzed together and discussed measures, the plaintiff newly created three companies around April 201 and supplied three new companies around 201.

(hereinafter referred to as the "inward of this case"). (C) The additional quantity supplied as above is referred to as the "inward of this case."

The price of one of the instant activers is 35,200,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 6 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 8 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff requested the payment of three of the instant actual oceanmen to the Korea-China Machinery around January 2013. As a result, the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the Korea-China Vessel Machinery discussed this.