A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On November 12, 2014, between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Plaintiff is entitled to the “facilities of this case” (hereinafter “instant facilities”).

3) The development and supply contract (hereinafter “instant development contract”)

(2) After concluding the instant equipment supply and installation, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to improve the error, etc. of the instant equipment at the request of the Madyi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Madyi”), a company requesting the development of the instant equipment, and for this purpose, even though the Plaintiff necessary to modify the equipment structure along with the development of the equipment, the Defendant requested the Defendant to improve the equipment structure with the development of the detection program of the instant equipment, and completed the alteration of the equipment (hereinafter “instant alteration agreement”) on August 31, 2015, upon excluding the alteration of equipment structure.

3) However, the instant facilities still failed to display their performance, which is not a matter arising from the supply and remodeling of the instant development contract and the instant modified contract, but from the necessity of the redevelopment of the program including the alteration of facilities and equipment structure. However, the Defendant requested the redevelopment of the program due to its cost issues. Nevertheless, on April 20, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for the payment of each insurance money, such as Paragraph 1, in the SGG Seoul Guarantee on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the instant development contract and the instant modified contract, and accordingly, the issue of the instant facilities is not based on the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, as described in Paragraph 1, respectively.