The defendant.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the parties' assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following: "Finally, the defendant company shall set off the plaintiff's damage claim amounting to KRW 717,845,135, and KRW 17,608,688, equivalent to the total sum of the claim amount of 15% of the claim amount for goods payment against the plaintiff company and the claim amounting to KRW 735,453,823, which is equivalent to 15% of the claim amount under the contract for sales by Medixa under the contract with the plaintiff company."

3. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The content of this part of the court’s explanation as to whether liability for damages arising from nonperformance was established is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts: (a) the part as to whether the damages incurred due to nonperformance was illegal, i.e., from 14th to 13th 16th 8th 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable

(3) As to the issue of whether the pertinent agreement is illegal or not, the Defendant Company was subsequently added to the warranty clause of the instant agreement, and there was a dispute between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company regarding the disclosure of transaction partners related to the actual sales amount for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation, and in a case where the Plaintiff Company continued to supply Mexo to the Plaintiff Company, there was a possibility of refusing to pay the goods to the Defendant Company by asserting that it offsets the price for the goods to be paid to the Defendant Company on the basis of the amount of compensation unilaterally calculated by the Plaintiff Company. Accordingly, the Defendant Company secured the goods payment claim against the Plaintiff Company on June 2013