The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in wholesale and retail business of synthetic resin and packaging films, and the Defendant is a company that engages in the business of printing Lavia.

B. On November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a film supply contract with the Non-Party Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”), and the details are as follows.

The supplied goods: The supplied amount of packing paper (T-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

Supply Period: Period of contract shall continue to be two years.

If a defect (1,500) or more among the products supplied by the plaintiff occurs due to about 5% (1,500), the whole quantity shall be immediately returned, and the plaintiff shall promptly re-work and deliver the products.

Provided, That when at least five percent of the defective quality occurs, the plaintiff and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd shall settle the defective quality under mutual agreement, but the transaction shall be terminated without delay, and this contract shall be null and void.

C. On April 24, 2019, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to print the Rovia on the packing paper to be delivered to C.

When the Defendant supplies the goods to the Plaintiff, it combines the packaging paper printed by the Plaintiff and supplies it to C.

On July 8, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the defect caused by the Defendant’s non-printed printing volume.

(A) No. 7). (e)

On September 2, 2019, the Plaintiff was notified by C on September 2, 2019 that “the Plaintiff shall notify the termination of the transaction due to frequent bad conduct of ear companies based on the goods supply contract prepared at the time of 2018.”

(Evidence A) 3. [Reasons for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Evidence A 1 through 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Defendant alleged the Plaintiff’s error in printing his lavia, thereby causing a defect in printing the packaging paper that the Plaintiff supplied to C.

C discontinued the transaction with the plaintiff on the ground of changing the package of paper.

The plaintiff was not paid 60,595,186 won due to the defendant's mistake, and C.