1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the column of “1. Basic Facts” on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance court E, with the exception of “the result of the appraisal of defects by the appraiser E,” which is “the result of the appraisal of defects by the appraiser E,” which is “the result of the appraisal of defects by the appraiser E,” which is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance court.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated under the contract of this case that "one or several fin-water colons and partitionss for each 4 line" combined one or more fin-water product to buy one or several fin-water diskettes products at one time (a multi-clock structure; hereinafter the same shall apply) by combining one or several fin-water copis and one or several fin-water copis to buy one or several fin-water products, and the fin-water copis type of this case and the 8 fin-water type of the fin-water type of the 8 line to be produced and supplied to the plaintiff by July 21, 201. In addition, the defendant is obligated to supply the fin-water type to the plaintiff using each fin-water type of this case.

① However, in the case of inserting Fin in using automatic assembly apparatus to fins and fins, which are gold-types using the gold-types in this case, fins and fins and fins, the occurrence of fins or changes. Ultimately, this shall be deemed to exist in each gold-type in this case (hereinafter “the assertion of defects”), and ② even before September 16, 201, the Defendant made each gold-type in this case and did not deliver it to the Plaintiff, or failed to complete work as a contractor by producing gold-types with the foregoing defects (hereinafter “ argument of non-performance of contract”). ③ On September 16, 2011, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff e-mail to the effect that “I notify the Defendant that I will no longer withdraw from the contract”).”