1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for product supply (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would produce and supply 1 set-type 30 liters for Kim Jong-pon (hereinafter “the gold-type”) from the Defendant, and set the price at KRW 28,000,000.

B. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant supplied the instant gold punishment to D Co., Ltd. designated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “D”).

C. In the presence of the Defendant, the first and second implications of the gold punishment of this case were presented in the presence of the Defendant, and the third implications were presented in the absence of the Defendant. In the process, the Defendant revised the gold punishment twice in accordance with the Plaintiff’s request for the correction of the gold punishment.

On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 3,000,000 as down payment, KRW 12,000,000 as part of the remainder payment on March 29, 2016, and KRW 8,000,000 as part of the remainder payment on June 15, 2016.

E. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content requesting the payment of the remainder. On July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) presented to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to complete the delivery within the earlier time, alleging that the correction was not made upon the Plaintiff’s request for correction; (b) on July 21, 2016, the Defendant sent a certificate of content that the Defendant urged the Defendant to reply to the above content certification.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, as the Defendant did not resolve the instant gold-type issue, renounced the repair of defects, left the gold-type D’s factory, thereby failing to supply the instant gold-type to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the contract of this case was omitted in the defendant's responsibility for performance.

In addition, the plaintiff cancel the contract of this case through the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case and restores it to its original state.