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

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company with the objective of painting construction business, unproof construction business, etc. and incidental business related thereto. 2) The Defendant is a company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling anti-friendly paints, synthetic resin, welded agents, and paint-related business.

B. The conclusion of the contract on the re-building construction of the apartment of this case 1) The apartment complex 4 and 5 apartment complex located in the 34-ro, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

(2) On August 2013, the council of occupants’ representatives decided that the Plaintiff participated in the said bidding and determined as the successful bidder. The council of occupants’ representatives requested that the Plaintiff submit a design proposal regarding the painting work. (2) On September 2, 2013, the council of occupants’ representatives decided that the Plaintiff participated in the said bidding and the Plaintiff was the successful bidder.

On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the council of occupants' representatives regarding the above re- viable works.

C. The 1st council of occupants' representatives decided to use the Defendant's paint products, such as the Defendant's paint, by setting the 5th color design proposed by the Defendant as the final design.

2) The Plaintiff was supplied with the pertinent paint from October 19, 2013 to October 24, 2013 by the Defendant. 3) On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff raised an issue that the use of part of the paint products would have occurred to the Defendant.

The defendant collected the product and confirmed whether the product is abnormal.

4) On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return unused paint products, etc., and the said council of occupants’ representatives also approved the alteration of paint products, such as paints used by the Plaintiff to the products of the Defendant, from the Defendant’s product, to the product of Sam Pu Industrial Co., Ltd. (the fact that there is no ground for dispute over recognition, Gap’s entries, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment.