1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The facts under each of the following subparagraphs are found to be in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7, including no dispute between the parties or each number.

[1] The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling energy facilities, and the Defendant is a Japanese company that produces solar batteries.

On November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction of the solar power plant of 1.5mW at the 1.5m high-level 20 Gaam-gun, Goam-gun, Goam-gun (hereinafter “the instant construction”) from Goam-do Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Maam-gun”).

The construction period of this case was extended by the end of September 10, 2008 under the modified contract, and Article 10(2) of the contract, which was concluded at the time of the conclusion of the contract, provides that “the quality assurance of solar batteriess among the goods, shall be replaced by the manufacturer’s quality assurance certificate for 20 years in consideration of the depreciation rate.”

[2] On January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff drafted an order for ordering solar batteriess equivalent to USD 5,926,252.5 to the Defendant via B to procure the solar batteries necessary for the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant order”).

The order of this case states that the quality guarantee period is 20 years from the date of approval for the test operation, and the performance of the locker in the attached form of purchase shall be guaranteed as a result of the test of the licensed certification authority for 10 copies of sampleing molds after delivery of the quality guarantee certificate for at least 20 years, and the performance degradation rate for 20 years after completion inspection, which is the performance guarantee period, shall be 1% per year, and output shall be guaranteed for at least 80% every 20 years.

The plaintiff, through B, has 3,922,725 US$3,922,725 on August 2, 2008; the date of supply

8. 15. The final written contract (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) was drawn up.

On the other hand, the order of this case and the supply contract of this case are the defendant as seller.