1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, upon a claim filed by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) whose exchange was changed in the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of this court’s admitting the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the allegations and evidence of the parties added in the court of first instance as to the allegations and evidence of the parties added in the court of first instance. As such, it

(1) Defendant C continued to place an order to Defendant D and received the goods from the third company of O, which was supplied by the Plaintiff. This is due to the fact that Defendant D could not receive the goods from the Plaintiff, and Defendant D had the right to approve the change of the delivery company pursuant to Article 22 of the supply contract of this case, but did not have the obligation to approve the change for the Plaintiff. However, in light of the basic contract of this case, the process, contents, supply structure, and the role of Defendant D, etc., it is reasonable to deem Defendant C not only Defendant D but also the Plaintiff to bear the obligation to place an order under the supply contract of this case. Rather, in full view of the written evidence of Articles 17 through 21, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, the Defendants appear to have received the goods of the same specifications from O, which were the third company of the same company, without ordering the Plaintiff to negotiate the supply unit price and the delivery of some parts required by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is not acceptable.

A. (1) The parties’ assertion (1) Defendant D may set off a set-off only with the permission of the court. Since a set-off made in the first instance court is null and void without the permission of the court, the declaration of intention of set-off is withdrawn in the trial. As a counterclaim, the sum of KRW 7,88,000 and KRW 75,288,000,000, which constitute the automatic claim of set-off as a counterclaim, and the payment of damages for delay is made.