1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of production, installation, and free construction business of the title.

The defendant is an incorporated association established for the purpose of fire prevention and safety inspection of fire-fighting systems, and has the Disaster Prevention and Testing Institute (hereinafter referred to as the "Research Institute of this case").

The research institute of this case is an institution that can measure the performance of the STS (Sdodos Clas, walls, windows, etc.) that can be used domestically to measure the level of noise and the level of loss. H, the competent research institute of this case, is in charge of the performance test of the STS, and H, the competent research institute of this case, takes charge of the performance test.

The construction company A (hereinafter referred to as “A”) which is a construction company of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Canadian”) with the Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Canadian”) implemented a multi-family housing construction project called “B Project”).

C Company (hereinafter referred to as “C”) was awarded a contract for the supply and construction of a title to the B project project.

C around October 2012, around 2012, ordered the Plaintiff to obtain an order from the Plaintiff 5,30,000 US dollars WS-102 (hereinafter “instant title”). Around October 2012, the Plaintiff demanded that the Plaintiff meet the performance of at least 29 of the OITC (Outador-Indor Telecommunicationss, and the index showing the sound performance of the entry of a building into a building into an external noise) and the performance of at least 36 STS, and require the Plaintiff to file a reliable report thereon.

(C) On January 30, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to perform the next performance test for the heading to be supplied by the Plaintiff. On January 30, 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the instant researchers to perform the next performance test for the heading to be supplied by the Plaintiff. While the instant researchers are capable of measuring the performance, the Plaintiff requested the TPP performance test only after hearing explanation that the OIT performance cannot be measured. On March 18, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the instant researchers to perform the next performance test.