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

A. The Plaintiff: (a) manufactured and sold machinery tools and tools; (b) supplied ices from the Defendant operating B around 201; and (c) manufactured and sold ryrings using the ices and other parts.

B. On April 201, 201, the Plaintiff returned the defective heading to the Defendant two times in total and four times on September 201, 201.

C. On December 31, 2011, the Defendant calculated the value of the heading returned from the Plaintiff as KRW 12,020,150, and issued a marina tax invoice equivalent to the amount to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3

2. The parties' assertion

A. If the Plaintiff’s assertion causes a defect in the manufacturing and selling process, the Plaintiff’s return or visit the installation site to solve the problem by dismantling, replacing, and re-prefabricateding the work. In the process, additional parts, re-prefabricateds, equipment, or door-to-door distribution costs are required.

In around 2011, the Plaintiff re-prefabricatedd 2,202 from the buyer due to the defect in the heading supplied by the Defendant.

Expenses incurred in the process of re-prefabricated are 59,458,404 won per 27,002 won per 1 payment (27,002 won per 1 payment x 2,202). Even if estimated based on the length of return return recognized by the Defendant, the number of defects occurring is at least 307, and the Plaintiff’s amount of damages is at least 8,289,614 won per 1 payment (27,002 won x 307).

Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to claim payment of KRW 56,327,604 and damages for delay, which are calculated by deducting KRW 3,130,800 from the amount of damages equivalent to the above additional cost 59,458,404 from the amount of damages equivalent to the above additional cost to the Defendant.

B. Among the ices for which the Plaintiff returned the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s return appears to have been due to the defect of the ice itself, not due to the defect of the ice itself, but due to the compatibility of the ry and ices produced by the Plaintiff.