물품대금
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where the court of first instance renders the "official payment" of the 6th, 4, 15, 7, 2, 14, and 19 as "supply payment", and the 7th, 10 through 9th, 11 as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter "decision on a counterclaim claim") as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable as it is by the main sentence of Article 420
2. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The sum of the supply price for the year 201 due to the continuous supply transaction of this case is KRW 296,59,99. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 248,777,60 as the supply price for the year 201, and KRW 2,217,601 (= KRW 298,777,600 ( KRW 248,777,600) - KRW 296,59,599) exceeds KRW 208,508, 208, 208, 208, 208, 308, 208, 208, 208, 308, 208, 2005, 208, 2084, 2008, 2005, 2008, 2008, 2004.
3) Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant 12,161,00 won (i.e., KRW 183,959,601 (i.e., KRW 2,217,601, KRW 181,742,00) minus the Defendant’s supply price of KRW 61,798,600 to the Plaintiff in 2010 (i.e., KRW 183,959, KRW 601 - KRW 61,798,600) and its delay damages. (ii) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant 12,161,00 won (i.e., the Defendant’s supply price for the continuous supply transaction of this case, KRW 32,208,00; KRW 31,394,000; KRW 394,601, Jun. 25, 2012).