1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to do salt processing work of ITY originals, etc. (hereinafter “the originals of this case”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff colored the originals supplied by the Defendant from October 31, 201 to December 31, 201, and supplied them to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 50,817,280 out of the original salt processing price of the instant case to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4 (including partial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the price for salt processing (50,817,280 won) payable to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion on the defendant's defense (1) argues that since the plaintiff suffered a loss exceeding the above salt processing price due to defective defects in the original body of this case, the defendant's assertion that the above unpaid salt processing price should be offset.

(2) The Plaintiff’s above assertion as to the selection of the appraisal object is not accepted in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 2 and 6 evidence; (b) the FIT test institute’s appraisal result (this is not clear to the Plaintiff that the appraisal object was chrofed by the Plaintiff; (c) but at the time of the appraisal, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the Plaintiff’s submission of the appraisal object; and (d) whether the Plaintiff’s defect was caused by the chrofed original body before the above appraisal result arrived at; and (e) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the selection of the appraisal object was not disputed by the Plaintiff; and (e) the fact inquiry result with respect to the FITI testing institute, based on the overall purport of the argument, the defect of sulfur change (hereinafter “instant defect”) occurred in the original body of this case that was drofed by the Plaintiff.