1. The part concerning the claim for damages caused by defects in the occurrence of a relic in the principal lawsuit by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall be dismissed.

2...

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “C”, is a person engaged in contact lenses export business at the place of Saudi Arabia, etc., and the Defendant is a company with the purpose of the contact lenses manufacturing business, etc.

B. At the time of July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a product supply contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with E, which provides that, upon receiving the Plaintiff’s order, E would manufacture and supply contact lenses to the Plaintiff, but if there is no further agreement, the contract period shall be automatically extended on an annual basis (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. Since then, as the Defendant was established on June 27, 2012, the Defendant acquired all of the business of manufacturing E’s previous contact lenses as it is.

On the other hand, on December 28, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the supply of contact lenses, etc. according to the Plaintiff’s order is unnecessary and the contract of this case is terminated, when the Defendant manufactured and supplied contact lenses upon the Plaintiff’s order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The gist of the cause of the claim is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff seeks to compensate the Defendant for damages arising from the package defects of the goods ordered by the order of March 13, 2012; (b) damages arising from the defect of the goods released in the supply of goods in the year 2012 through 2014; and (c) damages arising from the Defendant’s unilateral termination of contract and non-performance.

B. As to the claim for damages caused by the defect in packaging of the 1 defendant, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for damages is unlawful, since the limitation period under Article 69 of the Commercial Act concerning the seller's liability for warranty in the sale between merchants exceeds the limitation period, and this safety defense is changing.

The buyer in the sale between merchants.