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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, where the Plaintiff entrusted the sale of the goods to the Defendant and the Defendant sold the goods entrusted to the Defendant, the Plaintiff continues to engage in continuous transactions by paying the price for the goods. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with “Ctensioning” and “Ctensionp” as the supply price was 2.2 million each, and only one of them was returned, the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder of the goods to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserts that, inasmuch as the remainder of the goods claimed by the Plaintiff that they were not returned are returned on January 23, 2015, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the price for the goods.

2. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the “Ctension” and “Ctensionp” that caused each of the supply values on 2.2 million won to the Defendant. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1 (including each number), the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with multiple goods using the trademark “C” from October 27, 2014 to February 26, 2015; the Plaintiff was returned because a large number of goods were not sold; the details of the transaction made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on January 23, 2015 on the returned goods were stated “C” as “collection and C” with respect to the goods returned, and the Plaintiff’s supply value appears to be “the Plaintiff’s supply value” with the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 271, 200, which were written on January 23, 2015.