1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has operated both half-finished products and parts importers with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant has operated both half-finished products and parts importers with the trade name of “D.”

B. The Plaintiff, as indicated in the attached specification of transactions, was imported from April 25, 201 to March 24, 2016, with a part connecting the Defendant with the front and the inner bridge of the front and the inner bridge imported from China, as a component attached to the inner bridge.

supplied B and paid the price in full.

(Attachment Form 2: hereinafter referred to as "each part of this case") shall be included in each part of the specifications of transactions.

The Plaintiff: (a) assembled each of the parts and parts different from the parts in the instant case and manufactured the finished product of the Ansan test; and (b) supplied it to a distribution company with the mutual awareness of “E” (hereinafter “E”); and (c) supplied it to a nationwide retail store; (d) around 2012, the Plaintiff requested the consumers to return the returned product to each retail store on the grounds that the Plaintiff was easily cut down the site of the said Ansan test and the co-rating of the inner bridge is off well; and (e) on the grounds that the returned product was delivered to the Plaintiff, the delivery of the returned product was requested to repair or the Plaintiff deducted the amount equivalent to the price of the goods of the returned product from the price of the goods to be paid to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 through 45 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion contains defects such as easily cut tin and cutting off the pentbridges. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion (i) 27,308,600 won equivalent to the price for the goods returned after deducting the price for the goods that E would have to pay to the Plaintiff, and (ii) the Defendant received from the Plaintiff’s claim on or around June 5, 2013 and returned to the Plaintiff, and 1,100 mars and mars.