1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the additional determination as to the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in this court as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

[Attachment] The part in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as “from March 16, 2017 to March 5, 2018” as “from March 16, 2017 to March 15, 2018.”

In addition, the first instance judgment Nos. 5 and 6 of the fifth and sixth (C), and the defendant did not comply with an agreement to preserve 800 Dus per month following the request for cooperation in the business of this case on May 11, 2017 as follows.

“(C) June 2017; and

7. Damage to the preservation of processing costs following the failure to meet the agreed quantity, as well as the Defendant breached an agreement on May 11, 201 to preserve 800 copies per month following the instant request for cooperation in operations.”

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. In the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion, the Plaintiff trusted that the instant processing contract should be concluded on the premise of the preservation agreement with 2,700 heads of monthly in relation to the instant contract for the supply of goods, and entered into a new processing contract with E and 5,200 heads of preserved water for further processing of 2,700 heads of raw money, and recruited processing plant personnel, and entered into a contract with livestock farmers for the purchase of raw money.

However, the defendant unilaterally revoked the delivery or requested processing only for the quantity that is much less than 2,700 dubs.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the negligence liability for concluding the instant processing contract, concluded a contract with the Plaintiff to purchase raw money with the livestock farmers, and then concluded the contract with the Defendant to compensate for the sales difference caused by the Defendant’s revocation of supply and the processing cost for the remaining two parts, excluding the number of actually processed products, from 2,700.