1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff Company is a company engaged in the development, manufacture, etc. of electronic equipment and electronic parts, and the Defendant Company is a company engaged in the provision, etc. of a radar communications system.

B. Around June 11, 2012, the Defendant Company entered into a service agreement with the Navy Head of the Maritime Headquarters on the development of the GPSS-100 minr miner miner miner miner miner miner miner miner (hereinafter “instant land”) at KRW 44,00,000 (including value added taxes) with the Plaintiff Company around October 31, 2012, and entered into a contract on the manufacture of the GPS-10 miner miner miner miner miner miner (hereinafter “instant miner”) with the Plaintiff Company at KRW 44,00,00 (including value added taxes) with the Defendant Company’s head of the Maritime Gun, and submitted all of the test in accordance with the required specifications under the contract with the Defendant Company’s head of the Maritime Gun on February 15, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

Around October 31, 2012, the Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiff Company an advance of KRW 26,400,000 (including value-added tax) in accordance with the instant contract.

Plaintiff

Pursuant to the instant contract, the Company issued each of the Defendant Company a surety insurance policy of advance payment guarantee under the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company’s insurance coverage amount of KRW 26,400,00,000, advance payment guarantee policy of guarantee payment under the supply contract, insurance amount of KRW 4,400,00, and contract guarantee policy of contract deposit under the supply contract of guarantee contents (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant surety insurance policy”).

E. On the other hand, the Defendant Company failed to provide the Plaintiff Company with the GPS-100 radars, which are necessary for the development of the instant land, and the Plaintiff Company failed to develop the instant landmark even until April 15, 2013.