1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

Part 8 of the 8th judgment of the first instance, “The Insurance Money was paid on October 9, 2012,” and Article 17 of the 17th judgment, “The Insurance Money was paid KRW 110,000,000 on October 9, 2012,” respectively.

Before August 2012, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor submitted a detailed measure plan to develop the PLC HoC DCU (S-CU) for the development of the PE X ISO/IEC 12139-1 as the Defendant’s XPLC-23 chips were established on March 2015, 2015, with the results of the audit and inspection conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection on the remote inspection project in 2010 and the subsequent measure plan related thereto by the Board of Audit and Inspection.

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor supplied the Plaintiff’s Intervenor with X 4600-1 with xP-23 chips with defects not meeting the KS standard, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor supplied the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s 1 with data transmission equipment, etc. manufactured using the above XPC-23 chips without knowledge of the defects and installed at 50,000,000.

As a result, data supply devices already installed are not interchangeed with data transmission devices using a PLC chip that meet the KS standard to be installed in the future, resulting in a failure to build a low pressure remote inspection system. The Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor requested the Defendant to repair defects, such as replacement of PLC chips, but the Defendant failed to comply with the request.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff supplementary intervenor the warranty bond equivalent to the cost of defect repair or the estimated amount of damage compensation, and the defendant is obligated to pay the warranty bond under the contract of this case.