1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company aimed at manufacturing and selling nanotechnology materials, and the Defendant is a company with the aim of developing and processing textile products and chemical products.

B. The Plaintiff: (a) hosting film as a source for occupation, manufacturing AB Film; and (b) supplied it as a manufacturer of reinforced glass for the purpose of protecting Chinese liquid information.

C. From October 20, 2015 to January 2016, the Plaintiff was supplied approximately 4,920 km (OCA-UV-8) by the Defendant as necessary for the manufacturing process. D.

On January 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to return of defective products and some of the Chinese manufacturers, during the process of combining the AB Flam supplied by the Plaintiff with the strengthening glass.

On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to cooperate, if any defect occurred in the product produced by the Defendant’s shop for occupation.

Accordingly, the defendant, around February 2, 2016, delivered to the plaintiff as of January 15, 2016, the defendant exempted the price of 500 km from the point of delivery.

On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention to suspend the use of the land for occupation supplied by the Defendant due to continuous return, etc. from the Chinese manufacturer.

E. On the other hand, around September 5, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the unpaid amount of KRW 62,568,660, out of the supply price of the occupied land by Jeonju District Court 2016Kadan25982.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made from October 2014 to manufacture AB Flam, and exported to China over several times, but there was no possibility of a single defect.

From April 2015, among the products exported by the Plaintiff, there was a defect only in the film manufactured by using the Defendant's source water supply site.

In other words, this is due to the defect of the starting water supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff.