1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows, and this part of the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On April 2, 2013, the third party decision of the first instance court stated, “The Defendant provided the Plaintiff with tools, such as bridges, and gings, for the mass production of the instant automobile parts, in accordance with the instant supply contract.” The Defendant provided the Plaintiff with tools, such as gings and gings, necessary for the mass production of the instant automobile parts, during April 2013, and around April 2013, the Defendant provided materials necessary for the production, etc. of sampling of the said parts.”

B. Article 7-8 of the first instance judgment provides that “A new supply contract with another company on the same day was concluded with respect to the instant automobile parts” shall be construed as “a new supply contract with another company on the instant automobile parts at that time.”

(c) The third 9-10 of the judgment of the first instance court "each of the statements in Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 4, witness F, and G testimony" are written in Eul evidence 1 to 5, 14, witness F, and witness G, and witness G in the first 9-10 of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Although the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion began to perform the mass production of the instant automobile parts in accordance with the instant supply contract, the Defendant unilaterally terminated the instant supply contract on the grounds that the instant design modification is not consistent with the value of the remaining industries and products, which are the place of order.

The Plaintiff was prepared to manufacture the instant automobile parts due to the Defendant’s unfair termination of the instant supply contract, and ① month at the workplace.