1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The fact that there is no dispute over the recognition of the fact that it has been admitted, the entries in Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, 10 through 13, 15, 17, Eul evidence 1 through 3, 5, 8 (including each branch number), and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff imported a main household under the name of “Aknuriia” from Italian and sold it to Korea. The Defendant is the executor of the business of newly building and selling B apartment houses (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the gold industry corporation (hereinafter “gold industry”) is the contractor of the above business.

B. On April 30, 2007, the Defendant concluded a contract for the construction of the instant apartment with the gold industry.

On September 24, 2008, the gold industry and the defendant conducted a bid for the selection of the main household supply company to be established in the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff participated in the said bidding.

C. On September 30, 2008, the gold-free industry notified the Plaintiff of the fact that “The Plaintiff was determined as the main household delivery company of 85 square meters-type 204 households of the instant apartment complex in the bidding procedure conducted by the gold-free industry and the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff requested model low-income households ordering and installing the housing-free industry. The Plaintiff will be able to comply with the payment period of model lower-income and the construction.”

Accordingly, on November 3, 2008, the Plaintiff supplied and installed a household as a main agent to Acryman's model house of the apartment of this case.

The gold Industry selected a “C” company as the construction company of the above model hybrid, and executed the first construction. However, at the Defendant’s request, the construction company changed its construction company to an LAW area (hereinafter “SAW area”).

On December 15, 2008, the defendant entered into a direct contract with LAW as to the above Model LAW on December 15, 2008 and performed the second construction of LAW as model LAW.

The detailed statement of the above contract was included as material cost of the main household 40 million won.

E. On August 1, 2009, the Plaintiff is the head office of the Italian Republic of Korea.