1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2004, the Plaintiff, a company running the clothes manufacturing and sales business, entered into a clothing import and export contract with C Company (hereinafter “C”) and produced and supplied clothing according to C’s order.

B. The Defendant, having Hong Kong as its principal office, engaged in the factory evaluation, production plan, self-development, quality control business, etc. prior to the manufacture of Hong Kong as its principal office, accepted D companies of the clothing business sector divided by C around 2012, and the Plaintiff, around that time, supplied the goods to the Defendant by cash settlement (T/T) method. From January 2016, the Defendant traded with the Defendant through L/C (L/C) of USD 6,000 established by the Defendant.

C. On March 21, 2016, the Defendant sent the e-mail to the effect that the manufacturing of the clothes, which was already in progress to the Plaintiff, should be finished, and that all of the manufacturing of the clothes before the process would be suspended. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suspended the manufacturing process of clothes, but produced and supplied all the clothing ordered by the Defendant upon receiving a request to resume the manufacturing process on April 11, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant unilaterally suspended the Plaintiff’s clothes production due to reasons unrelated to the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s financial standing, etc., in the U.S., where the Defendant supplied the clothing supplied by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was damaged by USD 430,000 by suspending the factory operation for a period of 20 days. This is a damage caused by the Defendant’s unilateral delay of receipt. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said money.

B. Unlike the existing transaction method, the Defendant proposed the L/C transaction around January 2016, and the above L/C will only be dismissed by the Defendant’s creditor bank’s confirmation at the time of settlement.