1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased part 80 Rorocco12.0*4*8 (“R”) 4 (“R”) from the Defendant, and supplied the said Gohap to A, a customer of the Plaintiff.

B. On November 20, 2015, December 15, 2015, and March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased 80 copies of the same kind from the Defendant each over three times, and also supplied the same Gohap to A, a customer of the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff’s Gohap purchased from the Defendant on September 9, 2015 was a product imported from abroad by the Defendant.

On November 20, 2015, December 15, 2015, and March 11, 2016, at the time when the Plaintiff purchased a joint plate from the Defendant, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to supply the same product as that of the joint purchase, which was imported from the Defendant, on September 9, 2015.

However, on November 20, 2015, December 15, 2015, and March 11, 2016, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the same goods imported from abroad, not the goods imported from abroad, but the goods produced by the Defendant itself.

As a result of the plaintiff's questioning the defendant among March 2016, the defendant confirmed on November 20, 2015, December 15, 2015, and March 11, 2016 that the joint board supplied by the defendant on March 11, 2016 is the same product as the product imported from overseas, and that it is fine for fine and has not been used inside and outside the room.

E. However, around November 20, 2015, December 15, 2015, and March 11, 2016, A demanded compensation of KRW 32,503,560 to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the joint plate supplied on September 9, 2015 differs from the joint plate supplied on September 9, 2015.

F. On November 20, 2015, December 15, 2015, and March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) the joint board supplied on September 9, 2015 is identical to the joint board and the item and specification supplied on September 9, 2015; (b) the Plaintiff trusted the Defendant’s explanation that there is no problem in indoor use; and (c) the Plaintiff supplied it to A.

However, in fact, it can not be used as external materials, and it was a product with defects such as the guest phenomenon and fung.

G. Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the above reasons.