1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant supplied an electronic sign board to the Plaintiff who operates the field practice hall and made an oral promise to complete the installation work of the said electronic sign board. On the electronic sign board supplied and installed by the Defendant, there was any defect in the products, such as signal interference and failure of internal program, etc., and the Defendant’s technical skills and significance as to the video and synching, which will be realized on the electronic sign board, are insufficient. As a result, the Plaintiff did not operate the electronic sign board properly, resulting in the Plaintiff’s loss of KRW 10,840,00,000, business loss, and KRW 31,950,00,000, as a result of the closure of the operation of the field practice hall.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for warranty due to the foregoing defects in the product itself or in the installation itself, and as damages for nonperformance or tort, the above damages amounting to KRW 50,00,000, which is part of the above damages, and damages for delay.

B. According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (in the case of documentary evidence with several numbers, each number is included), the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff around November 30, 201 to supply five electronic sign board units and their accessory equipment to the plaintiff 10,840,50 won (excluding installation cost), and the plaintiff paid the defendant KRW 5,000 on December 3, 201, and received the above electronic sign board and its accessory equipment from the defendant around that time, and around that time, the defendant supplied the plaintiff with the above electronic sign board and its accessory equipment installed to the above electronic sign board and its accessory equipment to the plaintiff without additional cost, and the defendant did not arbitrarily suspend the operation of the electronic sign board or its accessory equipment to the plaintiff as of December 3, 2011.