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

A. On July 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant Warsaw Electronic Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Warsaw”) on the supply of at least 4,960 parts and cables (FPC) 8,00 U.S. dollars 105,646.46 (including value-added tax and customs) as part-added tax, and entered into an agreement on the supply of at least 4,995 U.S. dollars 354,395.25 U.S. dollars (including value-added tax) as part-added in the monitoring process with Defendant Non-Handbro (hereinafter “Defendant Non-Hand”).

B. On July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the amount of goods under each of the above contracts to the Defendants. At that time, the Defendants supplied each of the pertinent goods to the Plaintiff.

C. On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff requested Defendant Non-Hand to return the instant open cell by asserting that there was any defect, such as the display points, black points, and sacr damage, etc. in the open cell. On May 19, 2016, the Plaintiff sold at USD 185,946 to the Hong Kong’s Open cell 3,662 (including twits and cables provided by Defendant Shap) in the instant open cell 3,662 (including twits and cables provided by Defendant Shap) to the Hong Kong.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 had the parts of the A-Class quality among the repair devices that could have defects, such as display points, caused by Defendant Non-Maintenance, but there was a defect in the remaining parts except 2,040 out of the instant open accelerator supplied by Defendant Non-Hands, excluding 2,040.

In addition, the Twits and cables supplied by Defendant Shaf are parts combined with the open cell in this case, and if there is any such defect in the open cell, the corresponding Twits and cables are also used.