All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant offered a discount of KRW 288,49,000 to the Plaintiff out of the equipment cost ordered in 2010, based on its stated reasoning.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that each of the instant liability for compensation was a legal obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 960,000,000 by taking advantage of the business opportunity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in 2010.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of declaration of intent of disposal documents

3. Of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the service contract was concluded through the realization of intent between the Plaintiff and the Defendant during the period in which the period of free maintenance and repair of the defense service equipment of this case elapsed, based on its stated reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the formation of a contract by realizing intent,