A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is the U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U.S.”) on January 18, 2014.

) From 10,00 c.i.e., 52,00,00 c., 52,000 c. (excluding value-added tax) and c.i.e., 10,000 c., c., c.i., c., c., 30,000 c., from 21 and B on April 10, 2014. The Plaintiff requested c.i., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c.i., c., c., c., c., c., c.

2. 14. 14. The same year;

3. 14. Each source of nuclear power re-requests the color of 200 kings, but the same defect occurred.

3) Due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of the obligation, the Plaintiff could not supply the original parts ordered from the U.S., B, etc., and accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages that the original parts 30,000 would become useless in both of the original parts that were appointed in C by the order production method. Therefore, the Defendant must pay to the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 82,230,00 (=30,000 x 2,741 / 2,741 %) and damages for delay. (b) According to the reasoning of each of the entries, arguments, and evidence Nos. 1, A, 1, 2, 4, 5 (including each number), and the whole purport of pleadings, following the Plaintiff’s overall purport of arguments. < Amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 18, 2014>

2. 14. 14. The same year;

3. 14. Each source of 14. Re-requesting the 200 king color, but it is recognized that the occurrence of defects, such as tearing, contamination, etc., occurred.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defect in the color process occurred due to the defect in the original unit provided by the plaintiff, but around October and 11, 2013, there was no defect in the original unit provided by the plaintiff, and witness D himself.