1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The text of the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows. The plaintiff's new argument in this court is added to the following three claims. Thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part against co-defendants of the court of first instance, the separation of which has become final and conclusive), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part "Defendant C" used in the afterma shall be written in a lump sum by the Codefendant C of the first instance trial.

5. The 8th page "from March 8, 2017, which was the last delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case" shall be "from March 9, 2017, which was the day following the last delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case."

3. The further determination of this Court

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant’s glass product supplied to the Defendant was ordered to be used by the Defendant for the production of the Ulsan FF golf practice range (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Defendant requested, according to the estimate, the production of the “KS size 24T Roluium” by the Defendant, but actually supplied by the Plaintiff was “2T lusium rather than the KS size,” and the KS mark on the product surface was expressed by the Plaintiff’s arbitrary manipulation and was not favorable to the instant construction work.

Due to the supply of such erroneous products by the Plaintiff, the Defendant received a request for reconstruction from the Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial. The reconstruction cost amounts to approximately KRW 70 million in excess of the price of the goods against the Plaintiff, which is to be borne by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6 and Eul evidence No. 1, the following facts are recognized.

1. From December 9, 2014, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to manufacture various glass products and received them. On February 12, 2016, the Defendant was the co-defendant C of the first instance trial.