1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells a functional beer in the name of “B,” and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells bedclothess.

The plaintiff shall provide the defendant with the existing "B" type and large samples, each of which shall be provided, and the defendant shall accordingly manufacture a medium-sized 300 feet and a large of 100 feet and supply each of them to the plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff entered into a contract with the transaction partner on goods, the defendant shall complete and supply the goods as soon as possible.

The actual cost of goods shall be KRW 18,000,000 per set, which shall be the aggregate of KRW 45,000 per set, and KRW 9,00,000, which shall be 50% of which shall be paid in advance, and the remainder of KRW 9,00,000 shall be paid in advance.

B. Around June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for goods supply that produces and supplies “B” server verbally, and the content thereof is generally as follows.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,000,000 to the Defendant around June 13, 2015.

From June 13, 2015, the Defendant started the production of sampling and completed the first sampling on June 29, 2015, and completed the second sampling on July 8, 2015.

However, both the first and second samples produced by the Defendant were not consistent with the size of the samples provided by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded to re-making the Defendant’s second sampling by modifying the size of 2 to 3 cm.

E. Accordingly, on July 31, 2017, the Defendant produced and supplied “B” 400 sets and supplied them to the Plaintiff, but rejected the Plaintiff’s receipt on the grounds that the sample and size offered by the Plaintiff are not consistent with the size and sample offered by the Plaintiff.

F. After that, from August 1, 2015 to August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff sent an e-mail demanding the Defendant to supply goods that have been modified several times, and on August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff sent again an e-mail to the Defendant to the effect that “on August 5, 2015, it is known whether to supply goods or not” was delivered until August 5, 2015, but the Defendant responded to this.