1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, on April 18, 2013, the obligation of the Defendant became impossible due to the Plaintiff’s failure to operate three of the two-dimensional computer exchange equipments purchased from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant machinery”).

The Defendant asserts that the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved due to the defects of the instant machinery, and thus, the contract is rescinded, and the Defendant is claiming restitution or damages due to the cancellation of the contract.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant deceptioned the Plaintiff on the possibility of the operation of the instant machinery, and filed a claim for damages arising from tort against the Defendant.

2. On April 18, 2013, the date of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant machinery through an exchange contract with C on April 18, 2013, on which the Plaintiff and the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant machinery at the time of entering into the instant contract, based on the overall purport of oral arguments as to whether the Defendant’s obligation under the instant contract was impossible or not. The instant machinery was originally owned by C. B before entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff visited the instant machinery with both face-to-face computer exchange experts, and examined the condition of the instant machinery. The two parts were assembled but operated, but the rest was not assembled. On April 18, 2013, the date of entering into the instant contract. The Plaintiff, at the time of entering into the instant contract, requested the Plaintiff to transport the instant machinery at the expense of the Plaintiff, who was not the Defendant, to transport the machinery at the time of entering into the instant contract, and the Plaintiff was removed from the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant machinery at its own expense.