2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Accordingly, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, but changed the purport of the appeal and withdrawn the appeal against the counterclaim.

Therefore, the scope of the court's judgment is limited to the main claim.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the new argument added by the defendant in this court is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, '1. Judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit', except for the following determination as to the new argument added by the defendant in this court. Thus, it is citing it as it is

3. The defendant's argument on the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff sustained a loss of KRW 5,168,300 due to the delay in the delivery of the defendant's products by delaying the plaintiff's performance while supplying the original body (= KRW 640,000 delivery cost of KRW 2,520,80 due to the cancellation of the order). The plaintiff suffered a loss of KRW 59,145,00 due to the plaintiff's defect in salt, excessive water reduction, increase in the number of raw parts supplied by the plaintiff, etc., and suffered a enormous loss, such as the production of counterfeit products, by supplying the original design provided by the plaintiff to other enterprises. The defendant's brand value is damaged, and the plaintiff's brand value is equally supplied to the other enterprises, and the plaintiff's claim for the amount of damages should be deducted from the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods.

It is insufficient to find that there was a delay of performance or a defect in goods as claimed by the defendant only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's above argument is further examined about the remainder of the issue.