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 awarded a contract for the manufacture of 16 pressure vessels, one of the constituent parts of petroleum chemical plants, from the non-identical Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. located in Thailand. The Plaintiff is a substance similar to the Defendant’s cement at the bottom of the above pressure vessels throughout several times from October 18, 2012.

48,735,00 won (excluding value-added tax) was determined and awarded a contract for the filled construction work.

(hereinafter the above charging construction works are “the instant construction works,” and the construction contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is “the instant construction contract”). B.

The Defendant performed the instant construction work from October 23, 2013 to January 4, 2013.

C. The Plaintiff supplied 16 pressure vessels to the original energy company located in Australia via the Non-Sero Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 2 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant construction contract did not comply with the instant construction contract by failing to charge so that the space remains in the lower part of the pressure vessel.

The plaintiff suffered losses from the defendant's default of obligation to pay 144,79,000 won to the 144,79,000 won to the 144,79,000 won to the 144,79,000 won to the plaintiff as damages.

B. The Plaintiff sought compensation for damages to the Defendant by claiming that the cost of repairing the defect that the Plaintiff paid constituted ordinary damages due to the Defendant’s nonperformance. The compensation for damages due to nonperformance is limited to ordinary damages, and the damages due to special circumstances are liable only when the obligor knew or could have known of such circumstances.

However, arguments are made in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 8 to 18, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 12.