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

A. On March 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for manufacturing and supplying some machinery, such as pin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin oil

B. The Defendant received a total of KRW 50,800,000 as the mechanical price for the instant supply contract, and the Defendant produced and supplied the said machine to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant supplied only fin voltages among the machinery manufactured by the Plaintiff, and did not supply the remainder of the machinery (hereinafter “instant machinery”) such as fin voltages. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return 31,00,000 won remaining after deducting KRW 19,80,000 from the machinery cost paid by the Plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant asserted that the instant machinery was manufactured by entrusting the Plaintiff and the instant machinery to B operators of the same business, and paid C the instant machinery price. Since C manufactured the instant machinery and supplied it to the same metal corporation, the Defendant supplied the instant machinery to implement the instant supply contract.

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the determination, the Plaintiff and B, as the supplier of the Plaintiff and B, entered into a mechanical supply contract including the instant machinery. The Plaintiff and C intended to manufacture the machinery to be supplied between the same metal company and C, as the period for manufacturing the said machinery is imminent, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to manufacture the instant machinery, which is part of the fin pressure and the instant machinery. The Defendant requested the Defendant to manufacture the instant machinery, which is difficult to manufacture other machinery than fin pressure.