1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 303,323,01 and KRW 16,744,058 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 303,323,01 from June 26, 2013, and KRW 113,648,475.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture, sale, and construction business of double-story glass, and creative construction business. The Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells chemical drugs, and engages in the wholesale business of chemical medicine.

B. In around 2009, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied the double-story glass to C. The Co., Ltd. supplied it to D by combining the outer framework with the double-story glass supplied by the Plaintiff. D supplied it to the Ulsan-gu F apartment site (hereinafter “instant site”) constructed by E.

C. Around March 2011, 201, at the instant site, ethyl phenomena (e.g., ice construction phenomenon, Oily liquid phenomenon, as the Plaintiff supplied to some of the households at the instant site flows out of dunes).

(hereinafter “instant defect”). D.

The Plaintiff conducted a work to replace a durable glass upon E’s request for repair of defects.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 3-3, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 16-28, and 39 (including each number), the contents and images of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 16-28 and 39, the witness G's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant defect occurred as a defect in the second net container products among secondary materials used for the production of double-story products. Around 2009, the second net container products supplied by the Plaintiff were the Defendant’s products and H Co., Ltd. (I; hereinafter “I products”).

Among this, the second net container products used in the present site are the defendant's products.

Therefore, the defect in this case occurred due to the defect in the second net container products provided by the defendant.

Since the defendant did not perform his obligation to supply non-defectable products to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages, such as the cost of replacement of a double-story glass.