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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a goods supply contract between the Defendant and the Defendant, who cultivated snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick v

① According to the testimony of Radr C, which supplied the said machine to another water tank at the Defendant’s request, the amount of KRW 6,600,000 for the relocation of the said machine to KRW 52,80,000, which was supplied on or around December 2012, is “a machine, not a machine entirely separate from the smart cleanner, but a machine manufactured to be used with a smart cleanner by the Plaintiff with frequent breakdown of the smart cleanner.”

- 15,00,000 won for goods provided by the defendant on July 28, 2014 = 103,250,000 won = 103,250,000 won for goods provided by the defendant

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant merely received a request from the plaintiff to request that the examination be conducted free of charge for the performance test of smart cleaner, etc., and did not conclude a contract with the plaintiff for the supply of goods.

Even due to frequent breakdown of smart snicks installed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant suffered a substantial loss in money due to the death of snicks.

The above 15,00,000 won paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is merely a payment of other mechanical costs unrelated to smart cleaners, etc. claimed by the Plaintiff.

2. As to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of goods as alleged by the Plaintiff, the facts established in the Defendant’s aquaculture by the Plaintiff are not disputed between the parties, but the facts established in the Defendant’s aquaculture by the Plaintiff, such as the statements and images of the evidence No. 1-2, No. 2, No. 2, No. 4, and No. 6, and part of the witness C.