1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

In light of the above facts, the Defendant used used used used used used used goods equivalent to 1/2 of the normal product and used used used used used goods as used goods. As such, the Defendant calculated 30% of the sn beam material costs from 274,402,540 to 211,134,316, less than 63% of the sn beam material costs from 274,268,224 won, and calculated the purchase price of used goods from 31,670,147 won (=1,134,315 won x 30% x 50%).

The defendant is obliged to pay the above amount as compensation for damages at least by the warranty against defects.

3. Determination

A. As to the determination of the return of unjust enrichment with the material cost or the claim for damages equivalent to the above amount, D, which supplied the sn beam beam from the construction site of this case, has prepared a delivery confirmation of the content of the clerical error in the size 250*125*6*69, 1000 m3 as stated in Eul evidence 1-1, 10m in length and 216 m30 m3 as “64,160 g” in the weight of the received 216 m3, and the size 400*200*200*13, 1000 m in length, 105 m30 m30 m30 m3,00 m3, it is difficult to readily conclude that the sn beam beam of this case is more small than the size 250*12569*69, 1000 m216 m309,00 m.

Furthermore, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence 3 and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including the branch number), and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the contract of this case was determined and designed on the premise that the construction work is performed by inserting the sn beam 251,509km, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant posted the sn beam 251,509km more than the sn beam of the original contract in the construction work of this case and the construction work was performed, even if the defendant purchased the sn beam of 345,728km in relation to the construction of this case.