1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff, as an exporter of clothes, ordered the Defendant to supply the same original unit to the Plaintiff on June 2, 2016, on the sample of the Defendant’s 54inch sp 81% of the width and 19% of the day loan. The Defendant supplied the original unit to the Plaintiff on June 2, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff produced female clothing from the original body supplied to him/her and exported them to Japanese business entities several times from June 11, 2016 to June 15, 2016, but it was so high that the Plaintiff could reduce the width of the Plaintiff’s laundry.

C. Accordingly, on September 19, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “The Plaintiff is in custody of the Plaintiff, as a result of the labing of 2,700 square meters exported due to defects in the raw materials supplied by the Defendant, for which the amount of 2,300 square meters was recovered from 30 to 32% at the time of washing.”

On January 27, 2017, a document related to the demand for compensation that a Japanese company sent to the Plaintiff on January 27, 2017 is that “Although there is a defect in which the width can not be reduced as a result of the sample sample inspection of the front clothes, and 2% of the length can be reduced to 2% of the pattern length, there is a defect in the complete product with a 30% width reduced.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, and Gap evidence 10;

2. Determination

A. Under the premise that the Defendant supplied a set of specifications contrary to the conditions of a set of specifications different from the samples or of a set of specifications, the Plaintiff is seeking compensation for damages arising from the warranty liability.

The statements in Gap 6, 7, and 9 alone are insufficient to recognize that other originals than samples have been supplied, and there is no other evidence.

On the other hand, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, prior to the Defendant’s original supply, placed the original owner on the condition that “specific reduction rate” should be specified or “permissible maximum reduction rate should be observed.”