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

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose purpose of establishment is the manufacturing business, etc. of distinguished pressure equipment, and the Defendant is a company which aims at manufacturing, selling, and exporting and importing industrial machinery.

B. On September 2010, the Defendant ordered the supply of A’s automatic panel contact equipment in China pursuant to the contract with the Non-Party Co., Ltd., and ordered the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Co., Ltd.”) to the product to carry out the above service. Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Co., Ltd”) again ordered the non-party Co., Ltd. to manufacture and supply the part of the pressure device to the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “sexually automated”), and again ordered the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.) to manufacture and supply the part of the pressure device. The non-party Co., Ltd again ordered the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) to manufacture and supply 176 parts of the pressure device out of the pressure device. The non-party Co., Ltd ordered the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “original precision”).

C. In early 2011, the Plaintiff supplied 176 parts of the loaded 176 unit with which the order was issued in sequential order. However, in the course of trial operation of the loaded fluor in a local factory in China, the Plaintiff newly created and supplied three parts of the loaded fluor around April 201, while analyzing the causes of each of the above companies related to the production and supply of the loaded fluor and discussed countermeasures.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, witness Eul's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 105,600,000 to the third unit price of the actual share ordered separately as above.

B. Defendant (1) The above three parts of the above rooms were not ordered separately by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, but they were serious defects in the substance substance ordered and supplied to the Plaintiff in sequence. Thus, they were received as substitute goods for the defective article.