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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The Plaintiff is running a double-generation business with the trade name called Sejong Special Self-Governing City, and the Defendant runs a wholesale and retail business with the trade name called D in Seoul.

B. On July 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to supply the disturbance to the Defendant according to the “Saew on the day of supply” between the Defendant and the Defendant, and supplied the Defendant with the disturbance of the total of 24,950 mar (748,50 mar) from August 1, 2017 to September 7, 2017.

C. From August 1, 2017 to August 11, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant traded the price (sports area) published and publicly notified by E, an incorporated association, by issuing F (after investigating the market price by distribution zone, and issuing on every week and gold day) and the price (Seoul metropolitan area) publicly notified by G association for each region on the day on which F is not issued.

However, around August 14, 2018, the so-called harmful insects have occurred, and thereafter, the noise consumption has decreased rapidly and the noise has decreased rapidly, and the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a letter proving the content of the column that, with respect to the column supplied from August 16, 2017 to September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff had a reasonable price discounted by approximately KRW 50 won, compared to the announced price of the above E and G Cooperatives, and based on this, the Defendant calculated the amount of the disturbance unpaid by the Defendant only KRW 5,070,30 (Evidence 1).

On the other hand, if the defendant calculates the amount of the disturbance that the defendant did not pay to the plaintiff according to the notified price of the above E and G Cooperatives, it is KRW 18,173,100.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to supply eggs according to “the city taxes in the sports area on the day of supply”. The Plaintiff supplied eggs to the Defendant according to the objective prices publicly notified by E and G Cooperatives (the city taxes were supplied, and the discounted prices presented by the Defendant are no grounds therefor.