1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of golding or withdrawing electronic components under the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant Company is a corporation that manufactures and sells telecommunications equipment.

B. On April 2017, Defendant Company transferred gold paper (hereinafter “instant gold paper”) to the Plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining the delivery of the instant gold paper from the UCARE RE (hereinafter “the instant gold paper”). On August 3, 2017 and August 4, 2017, Defendant Company issued an order for the instant gold paper (hereinafter “instant order”) with an amount of KRW 492,090,000 (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 160,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) respectively to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to cancel the order for the instant private goods around September 2017 (or around October 2017) as to the sampling of the instant private goods produced by the Plaintiff following the order for the instant private goods, which was not approved by the Defendant Company, and thus, did not supply the instant private goods to the Defendant Company.

The Plaintiff transferred the previous gold model to the Defendant Company or its designated company by November 2017.

E. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company concluded a contract under which the Plaintiff produces and supplies the amount of KRW 17,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) to the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant gold-type supply contract”), and on June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a contract under which the Plaintiff produces and supplies the amount of KRW 10,560,000 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant gold-type supply contract”).

F. The Plaintiff produced gold punishment under the gold-type 1 supply contract of the instant case, supplied it to the Defendant Company, and received the payment in full.

G. The Plaintiff produced a gold punishment under the gold-type supply contract of this case and supplied it to the Defendant company, but failed to obtain approval from the quality inspection, thereby receiving the remainder of KRW 4,800,000 (value-added tax separately).