The defendant.

A. The conclusion and progress of the instant construction contract 1) The Plaintiff awarded a contract for the manufacture of 16 pressure vessels, one of the parts constituting petroleum chemical plants, by the non-identical Industries Co., Ltd. located in Thailand, and subcontracted the construction of filling the part under the bottom of the said pressure vessel 16 period to the Defendant four times from October 18, 2012 to January 4, 2013, under the bottom of each of the said pressure vessels 16 period (hereinafter “instant filling construction”). The instant filling construction work is called “instant construction work,” and the charging construction contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is called “instant construction contract.”

(2) On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) presented the first design drawings indicating the 11st unit of the steel cover at the bottom of the pressure vessel to the Defendant, and asked the Defendant whether it is possible to charge the lower part of the steel cover; (b) the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff that the width of the injection unit is difficult to use the less narrow vibration, compared to the standards of the vibration (a machine that makes the injecting charge spread inside the inner) he/she owns. (A) Around July 10, 2010, the Defendant drafted and issued a quotation to the Plaintiff that determined the total construction cost as KRW 55,350,00 by calculating the material cost, construction cost, construction cost, and construction cost, etc. necessary for the injecting construction. Of the details of the said estimate, the Defendant stated the “in the said piece of non-materials materials column 10,000,000 won per 10,500 g,50 g,000.

C) On October 10, 2010, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff an e-mail (e-mail) work process document stating the mixing ratio for the creation of the database, the method of manufacturing the database, etc., and around the 16th day of the same month, the Plaintiff’s employees and the Defendant’s employees held a meeting to discuss the instant construction work. At the time, the Plaintiff’s employees were 14cm wide x 74cm wide at the center of the steel cover cover at the bottom of the pressure vessel.