1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has completed business registration with the trade name of “C” and operates a fiber or salt processing business, and the Defendant operates a fiber processing business with the trade name of “D.”

B. Eassia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Esia”) is a company that manufactures tyrts et al. and supplies them to Estept Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Estept”). The company subcontracted the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s pattern infection, and the Defendant subcontracted the Defendant with the production of Estez.

However, in the process of performing its duties, if the plaintiff and the defendant, for each other's business convenience, substituted the original body as ordered by the Norway and sent it to the plaintiff, they had done salt work to the original body, sent it again to the plaintiff, and the defendant finally completed the original body that completed salt work, and then supplied it to the Trade Union.

C. From March 2, 2012 to April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred 71,000 Twitts among them to the Defendant; (b) on April 2, 2012, the financial standing of Norway sharply aggravated; and (c) the Defendant attempted to deliver 71,000 finished products of 71,00 Ests completed in cooperation with the Plaintiff, but (d) refused to receive them from Norway.

Since then, due to the dishonor of Nompia, the Defendant attempted to deliver the above Maberts to Empia instead, but on the part of Empia, the Defendant demanded the Defendant to submit evidentiary data on the cost of the product. On April 30, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the supply contract of the product (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the following content was prepared:

- A - The first (Purpose) of this Agreement is to request the Defendant to produce products to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s work order is to be given to the Defendant.