1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates the business of manufacturing semiconductors and machinery parts (former mutually referred to as “firerology test”), and the Defendant is a personal business entity that manufactures and repairs machinery parts, etc. in the trade name of “B”.

B. On May 15, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant to produce and supply the lost and scrap sets exclusively used for PFA (MFA resin) (hereinafter “instant loaded leaves”); and (b) the Defendant supplied the instant loaded leaves to the Plaintiff on July 2012 after completing the production thereof.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. (i) The parties’ assertion (i.e., various defects, such as the influence of the Plaintiff’s assertion, were found in the instant actual condition produced and supplied by the Defendant, and could not be properly used. Since the Plaintiff had to pay unnecessary human resources and expenses to find the solution, the Defendant is required to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages (such as labor cost, raw material cost, etc.) therefrom.

D. The Defendant did not have any obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for damages because the Plaintiff’s negligence in the process of installing and operating the product was the primary cause of the Plaintiff’s negligence.

B. (i) Each description of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8 in the manufacturing process and the whole purport of arguments as a result of appraisal of defects by appraiser C is added to the purport of the whole pleadings. ① The plaintiff has notified the defendant of the occurrence of defective conditions, such as bad conditions, such as bad conditions of bad conditions by repeating four times or more after the plaintiff was supplied with the instant sludge and until December 2012, 2012; ② as of March 6, 2014 (date of appraisal by an appraiser), the result of measurement by the relevant actual difference exceeds 0.26m in the drawing, which is the permissible difference in the drawing. The result of measurement by the actual difference exceeds 0.02m in the drawing. 0.18mm. which is the permissible difference in the drawing.