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

A. In around the end of 2015, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the processing of REAR O (hereinafter “instant goods”) on the surface of Alice (G5) mobile phone after the mobile phone from Han Daily Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Capital”).

B. On February 2016, the Defendant: (a) ordered the Plaintiff to take the scambling of the test of the instant goods into consideration the scambling process of the instant goods.

C. On April 17, 2016, the ELE discontinued discontinued the instant mobile phone-related clinical processing on the grounds of the sales depression, and the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to suspend the transaction on April 17, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, witness B's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, while ordering the production of the Class 0 GG for the processing of the instant goods, agreed to ensure at least 10,000 parts or 20,000 parts of goods per day to the Plaintiff for a period of at least 4,5 months. However, despite the Plaintiff’s absence of any defect in the above search work, the Defendant unilaterally ceased to engage in the transaction, and the Defendant made K210 parts of goods for that purpose by deeming that the Defendant would make a new contract for the processing of the instant goods, but the Defendant did not recognize the processed goods.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the unilateral discontinuance of transaction as above.

Damage suffered by the Plaintiff is equivalent to the total of 48,328,456 won of the production price of the 18th Dog and K210 Dogg, which became an unclaimed land due to the suspension of the Defendant’s transaction.

B. In light of each description of evidence No. 11, evidence No. 11, and evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same) of the judgment, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant unilaterally suspended the transaction even though the Defendant failed to take the processed quantities agreed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is within the scope of compensation for damages.