1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff (C) who sells the basic fact-finding machinery machinery tools has purchased from the defendant (D) the following Ethymplates:

On October 16, 2014, the name of the date of transaction and the purchase amount (excluding value-added tax) of the TIPLE (GR5) 220,000 won (Chapter 4) on October 27, 2014, the title and purchase amount of TIPLE (GR5) KRW 110,000 (Chapter 2) on December 7, 2015, the title and purchase amount of TIPLT 12T 12T 1,00,000 won (Chapter 20) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Tinium fate”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with high-Robbery products identical to those supplied on October 16, 2014 and October 27, 2014, as it was used for aircraft parts. However, on December 7, 2015, the Defendant supplied the instant high-Robbery displays with other GR2 specifications.

However, ER2 specifications were less seal intensity than TR5 specifications, so it was impossible for the plaintiff to make a process that the plaintiff was trying to do because the seal intensity was weak than TR5 specifications.

(2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 21,990,000 as follows, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

(A) On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff did not comply with the standards, resulting in damage to the Plaintiff, through the Defendant, to purchase a new aluminium display in KRW 1,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) from E.

(B) On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff requested heat processing to F with the instant Typium displays and disbursed KRW 16,100,000 (Evidence A4 and 5). The Plaintiff did not supply the instant Typium displays for aviation because it did not properly process it, resulting in the loss equivalent to the above processing cost.

(C) The Plaintiff paid KRW 20,930,00 of the processing cost on March 15, 2016 to the night work to observe February 15, 2016, which is the due date for the Plaintiff’s aviation, and accordingly, the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 Evidence A No. 8 overlaps with the evidence No. 6.