A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells electric power supply equipment, etc. and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells electronic parts.

B. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff ordered 1,300 transformers (product code VR4501046, standard NSVT150-05) to the Defendant, which are parts of the electric power supply system, to place an order on November 30, 2016; and

2. The Defendant received 1,300 copies over two occasions, and on February 16, 2016, ordered 2,500 alterers of the same spawn on the same spawn to the Defendant, and received 2,500 copies in three order on March 2016.

C. On March 2016, the Plaintiff discovered any defect in the transformer supplied by the Defendant and demanded the Defendant’s Vice-Minister to present a solution to the defect. However, the Defendant did not comply with this.

In addition, on September 19, 2016, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to put an order of 1,000 transformers of the above specifications to the Defendant, and received them from the Defendant on the 30th of the same month, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied an electronic sign board manufacturer as 500 among them, and 500 of them are under custody.

E. On October 17, 2016 and September 20, 2016, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant on September 30, 2016, that 50 units of 50 units of diversculatorys, which were supplied on September 30, 2016, were assigned to the Defendant without any distinction between floors, and thus, they cannot be used as a heat increase in the time of using the product, while this notification was made on January 1, 2016.

3. The goods supplied with the same kind of work as the goods put into storage and the same defect occurs. Therefore, the entire quantity of the goods was required to be recovered.

F. A product specification sheet issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant provided that the Plaintiff’s distribution did not indicate glass, and the Defendant’s distribution line overlaps on each floor. However, as a result of extracting and appraising samples on the transformers supplied by the Defendant, the Defendant’s distribution method was attached only to the one side, where the distribution tape is not attached, and ② the cco-day’s distribution line differs from the 4th right line or the 5th right line so that the cco-dayss overlap with one another.