2. Appeal;

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s goods payment obligation against the Defendant arising from the supply transaction, such as luminous fishing between February 2005 and January 14, 2008, does not exist any longer due to the extinguishment of both the instant reduction agreement and the Plaintiff’s repayment.

B. On the Defendant’s assertion and counterclaim claim, the Defendant asserted that “this case’s reduction agreement was a condition that the Plaintiff continues to trade with the Defendant and does not trade with the other company, and since the Plaintiff violated the above condition and transacted with the same kind of business with the other company, the instant reduction agreement was null and void. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the obligation to pay the remainder of the goods price (= KRW 179,576,000 - KRW 150,000) to the Defendant, and then filed a counterclaim to the court.”

The circumstances revealing the purport of the entire argument among the above macroscopic evidence, i.e., (i) the witness C made the instant reduction agreement under the condition that the Plaintiff continues to trade only with the Defendant. However, C was not in the place at the time of the instant reduction agreement, but merely transferred the content of the agreement from D, the Defendant’s representative, and thus, it is difficult to believe it as it is in light of the relationship between C and D, ② the fact confirmation document submitted by the Defendant (No. 2-2-2) was prepared by the Defendant, and was in the place at the time of the instant reduction agreement.

or from the Plaintiff, the instant reduction agreement is concluded.