1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the manufacture and supply of the instant product (hereinafter “instant contract”) on the part of the mobile phone case with a large function (hereinafter “instant product”). The Defendant manufactured and supplied the instant product to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 63,018,250 to the Defendant as the price for the goods. There is no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is due to the change in the number of months of the delivery by the plaintiff and the function of sound, which is its essential function. This is due to the fact that the defendant had a problem in the process of breaking a chemical substance, such as tin, etc., out of the advanced state, and the so-called "expliciation process", the defendant's claim amount of KRW 63,018,250 corresponding to the price of the product of this case is 63,081,250. In light of the cause of the claim, the claim amount of this case is 63,018,250 won, and the claim amount of this case is 63,018,250 won, which is the price of the product of this case.

shall compensate for such losses.

3. The judgment is based on the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8 (including the paper number), Gap's testimony and the plaintiff's representative questioning result alone. It is not sufficient to recognize that there exists the same defect as the plaintiff's assertion in the product of this case, and the cause of such defect occurred in the defendant's territory. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence, and the defendant argued that the cause of the alteration of the product of this case was attached to the metal attached to the process of raising the so-called "dried water prevention belt so that salt or water can not be added because it does not come to an corrosion." However, although the plaintiff argued that the cause of the alteration of the product of this case is not because it is not because the "dried water prevention belt" attached to the product of this case, but because it is due to the defect in the process of raising evidence during the defendant's manufacturing process. Thus, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.