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

A. On August 206, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the manufacture and sales business of safety caps and functional rain bags, entered into a contract for the manufacture of waterproof 896 punishment (hereinafter “instant manufacturing contract”) with the Defendant, who is a strawer, and the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Defendant with raw and secondary materials and pay KRW 11,000 to the Defendant for the cost of the waterproof boom.

B. According to the manufacturing contract of this case, the Defendant supplied the Defendant with the waterproof, and then the Plaintiff would pay the rent for the processed work if there is no defect after undergoing the tallying procedure. The Defendant refused the payment of the rent when he supplied the Defendant 48 punishment to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant requested the payment of the rent for the processed work while he supplied the same only on the 9 punishment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages to the remainder after deducting the cost for the processed work that the Plaintiff would have to pay from the price of the waterproof paint that the Defendant did not deliver.

C. On the other hand, waterproof Chock is registered as KRW 100,00 on one set at the Public Procurement Service. As such, the specific amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff is the total amount of KRW 74,671,00 of the 839 punishment that the Defendant did not deliver to the Plaintiff (=896-48-9) x 89,000 won (=100,000 won-1,000) and the total amount of KRW 315,000 of the 9 punishment supplied only on the basis of the 839 punishment (=9 x 35,000 won) and damages for delay.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 through 5, and No. 2, the Plaintiff entered into the instant manufacturing contract with the Defendant around August 2006 by setting the manufacturing cost of No. 11,000 won on the punishment of No. 896 punishment. The Plaintiff and the Defendant manufactured a waterproofk in accordance with the manufacturing contract of this case. On early 2007, there was a conflict between the Defendant’s water control and the Plaintiff’s duty to pay the cost of processing, and the Defendant had several years passed thereafter.