1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,347,420 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 15, 2015 to October 25, 2016 for the Plaintiff.

1. On April 17, 2015, 17, 45, BY 2, 30G 2, 58G 2, BY 2, 40, 53G 2, 58G 2, 40, 54G 2, 50, 53G 2, 58G 2, 40, 54G 2, 58G 2, 54, 652, 45652, 65, 65, 65, 300, 00 39, 457, 2, 54, 2, 205, 30, 57, 54G 2, 54, 57, 777, 400, 460, 205, 53G 2,584G 2,584,2,015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the above main body and main body supplied by the plaintiff were defective, the defendant's right to claim compensation for damages against the plaintiff's claim for the price of the goods.

According to the evidence Nos. 2-6 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be recognized that the above original team and original contractor supplied by the Plaintiff had a defect that failed to meet the quality standards, considering the pollution, ice-shaped phenomenon, booming, booming off, and blaishing phenomenon.

If it is deemed that the fact that the damage has occurred, but it is extremely difficult to prove the specific amount of damage due to the nature of the case, the court may determine the reasonable amount as damages by taking into account the overall purport of the pleading and all the circumstances recognized as the result

(Article 200-2 of the Civil Procedure Act). Although the fact that the Defendant suffered damage due to the above defect is recognized, it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage without the appraisal of the above defect.

The details and progress of the instant transaction, transaction practices between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and other cases.