1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff was supplied with 1,285 king nuclear power units from the Defendant, and sent the said nuclear power units to China’s factory, and produced tension 1,218 points.

B. Although the Plaintiff intended to export the above-produced clothing product to a Japanese company, the Plaintiff received a notification from the Japanese company that there was a problem of being infected after laundry, and then exported the clothing 812 points by changing the price from USD 14 to USD 8.5 per the clothing under the initial agreement. The remaining 406 points were not exported by the cancellation of the transaction in the Japanese company.

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

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was liable for damages to the Japanese company due to the cancellation of the transaction with the Japanese company due to the defective product produced by the defendant, and caused damages to the plaintiff's loss due to the loss of the plaintiff's import. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the plaintiff's damages caused by the defective product ($ 8,375, USD 10,150, USD 10,150, USD 493.68, and USD 91).

3. The plaintiff filed the claim of this case on the premise that salt occurs in the clothing products completed due to the defective quality of the clothes supplied by the defendant, and that the contract with the Japanese company was rescinded due to that reason.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there is a defect or defect in the quality of the original group of the clothing supplied by the Defendant, which falls short of the quality of the original group as determined by the original party. There is no other evidence to acknowledge

Rather, the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the Plaintiff’s omission in the raw part of the clothes supplied by another company, which led to a request to resolve this problem to the Defendant, but the Defendant produced by the Plaintiff.