Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply a dump lamps system (hereinafter “instant product”) within the electrical construction site A of Dain Co., Ltd. at the New Construction Site A.

(hereinafter “instant supply contract”). The Plaintiff supplied the instant product in accordance with the instant supply contract, and received the performance guarantee insurance policy (e.g., performance) from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. on May 2, 2013, and delivered it to the Defendant.

Securities No. 100-000-2013 0170- 8205: The insured amount of the Plaintiff’s insurance coverage: the insurance period of KRW 1,635,480 (3%): From April 18, 2013 to April 17, 2016: The warranty bond amount under the supply contract: the Defendant paid KRW 2,57,500 to Vienna Co., Ltd. on July 28, 2015 as the defect repair cost due to defective performance in the lighting function of the instant product supplied by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “in this case”).

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 3 and 5 evidence (including numbers), and the place where the plaintiff product of this case was installed with a special lighting fixture due to high heat and dampness. The defendant established the product of this case of this case as a general lighting factory without considering the lighting environment. Thus, the defective quality of this case is not due to the defect of the product of this case.

The defendant product of this case is responsible for compensating for any defects since the plaintiff visited the defendant's construction site and delivered a proposal by selecting the plaintiff.

Judgment

According to the whole arguments and arguments, the plaintiff does not simply supply the product of this case at the defendant's request, but simply compare the terms and conditions of facility lighting, the status of the facility and the improvement before and after the improvement, and the electric lamps.