물품대금
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the supplementary judgment as to the part on which the defendant asserted as the grounds for appeal by this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Supplementary judgment
A. The summary of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal ① on November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Defendant with 2,000 free of charge during the year 2014 and provided only 1,400 out of that agreed to provide the Defendant with 2,00 free of charge. As such, 600 won (=600 won x 6600 won) should be deducted from the Defendant’s price for the Defendant’s goods.
② The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the gold spawn, which was reproduced by the Plaintiff using the gold spawn test site as its head, to the Defendant, a gold spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn swn.
B. 1) First, we examine the above grounds for appeal No. 1. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with only 14 million mothers that stop in 2014 according to the agreement on November 1, 2013, as seen above. However, the Defendant is only entitled to claim the remainder of 600 supply to the Plaintiff pursuant to the agreement, and there is no ground to deem that the Defendant should deduct 600 mothers supply price from the obligation to pay for the goods. Accordingly, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is without merit. 2) Next, we examine the grounds for appeal No. 2.
According to the results of the fact-finding conducted on April 6, 2016 by the court of first instance as to Gap evidence 17-1, and the fact-finding conducted on the budget nationalization test site of Chungcheongnam-do Agricultural Technology Institute, Chungcheongnam-do. The plaintiff purchased five varieties, including gold bags, from the above budget nationalization test site on March 7, 200, April 4, and May 1, 200, and May 1, 2012.