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 legal entity established on March 15, 2010 for the purpose of running a pharmaceutical business, etc.

나. 원고는 고농도의 과산화수소나 과산화요소 겔을 이용하여 변색된 치아를 하얗게 만드는 미백제를 제조하기 위한 시설인 크린룸 시설을 부산 해운대구 C건물 714호에 설치하기 위해 피고와 사이에 아래와 같이 2건의 계약을 체결하였다.

(1) Around December 16, 2010, the construction cost of KRW 45,00,000 (Additional Tax Table), the commencement date of construction work, the commencement date of construction work on December 2, 2010, and the date of completion of construction within 35 days, respectively, entered into a contract for the construction of the studio.

(2) On December 21, 2010, around 201, the Defendant entered into an experimental service contract with the effect that the test period is 12 months from January 201 to January 2012, 201; the contract amount is 15,00,000 won; and the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with experimental services, such as “the collection and arrangement of basic data for evaluation of qualifications for users provided by the supplier and the customer; the conduct of verification on the adequacy evaluation; the preparation of relevant protocol and report; and the preparation of initial crouds.”

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the total amount of KRW 60,136,500 (the amount of KRW 54,386,000 for experimental services contract amounting to KRW 5,750,50 for construction work).

On January 201, the defendant completed the construction of green studio around 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. In order for the Plaintiff’s assertion to produce and sell abaminate in the above Cudio, the cudio meets the standards for inspection of the Food and Drug Administration. The Defendant erroneously installed the above Cudio in a state where it failed to meet the standards for inspection as set by the Food and Drug Administration due to erroneous design and construction of the Cudio. Accordingly, the Defendant failed not only to install the Cudio but also to perform the experiment service contract at all.

Therefore, the Defendant received construction payment from the Plaintiff.