1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant's KRW 11,343,260 against the plaintiff and this on September 1, 2013.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, citing the reasoning of this judgment pursuant to Article 420

2. Judgment on the assertion by this court

A. Determination 1 on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the cost of replacing the accelerator is insufficient to offset the fault with respect to the damage equivalent to the cost of replacing the accelerators. Moreover, the defect of the accelerators in this case arises not only from the defect of the accelerators supplied by the Defendant but also from the defect in the process of assembling the accelerators using the parts. Therefore, in calculating the reasonable amount of damages corresponding to the cost of replacing the defect, the error on the part of the Plaintiff should also be considered as the reason for offsetting the fault. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable in light of the various circumstances that are appropriately indicated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited prior to the assertion that the amount of comparative negligence is excessive. In light of the aforementioned various circumstances, it is reasonable to deem the rate of negligence due to the Plaintiff’s mistake as 70%.

The plaintiff's assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

3) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the raw materials cost of KRW 15,286,768 is damage is also equivalent to the raw materials price of KRW 15,286,768 is required for the Defendant to manufacture the stenographic parts and is ultimately included in the accelerator, which is the final completed part. Therefore, insofar as the Defendant compensates for the entire amount of the depreciation part as damages, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable. (B) This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable. The Defendant’s assertion that the warranty liability does not occur, namely, the circumstance in which the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not have a quality inspection on the stenographic parts supplied by the Defendant, namely, the circumstance that the Plaintiff was able to issue the tax invoice without having been able to do so, would not be problematic even if there is any defect in the parts.