1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff, which received a business registration certificate with the name of “D,” entered into a goods supply contract (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) with the content that the studio-type mal-type mal-type mal-type mal-type mal-type mal-type mal-type mal-type mal-type 2,48,400,000 won (hereinafter “the instant goods supply contract”) with “B” (Therefore, Defendant B’s personal signature was signed in the column of the goods supply contract in this case; Defendant B’s assertion that the Plaintiff, the actual operator of D, prepared the goods supply contract in the name of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the contracting party is F is not the Plaintiff, respectively), and the parts related to this case are extracted as follows.

D AE B G ABD

B. On November 9, 2015, at the request of Defendant B, the Plaintiff endorsed and delivered to the Defendant Company an advance payment for the instant goods supply contract with B, the amount of KRW 100 million in face value issued by B. On November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff wired KRW 10 million in value to the said KRW 100 million to the account of E inte.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4-2, Eul evidence 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that Defendant B did not supply the goods by December 25, 2015, within 45 days after receiving the down payment pursuant to Article 5 of the instant goods supply contract. Therefore, the instant goods supply contract is rescinded by serving a written complaint of this case.

Therefore, Defendant B’s primary restitution of KRW 110 million due to the cancellation of the above contract or concluded the instant goods supply contract by deceiving the Plaintiff as if there was no technology that can commercialize the instant goods for automatic and passive purposes, and thus, it is necessary to pay KRW 110 million as tort.

In addition, the defendant corporation B.