1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used or added as “the part to be removed or added.” The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff’s assertion as being additionally submitted by this court, and the fact-finding results of the court of first instance is rejected. It is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Part to be dismissed or added is KRW 28,800,000 (“288,000,000”) of No. 6 of the judgment of the first instance. 17.

The following shall be added to Section 17, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 7, of the first instance judgment:

It is because the Defendant’s allocation of only 12Plet quantity to the Plaintiff in relation to the transport of June 14, 2017 is because only the transport charges for two portions was allocated from the 12Plet base rates from the 12Plet base on the part of the Plaintiff, a trucking shipper. If the Defendant allocates 13Plet to the Plaintiff, the issue arises that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the fare exceeding the transport charges received from the I side in accordance with the transport contract of this case.

[Attachment 8] Section 13 of the first instance judgment is amended by adding the following descriptions to the “paragraph 13.”

7) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is obligated under the good faith principle to allocate the volume of goods exclusively or preferentially to the Plaintiff according to the instant contract of carriage, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, 8. As to the carriage as of June 14, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to deliver 12 set of freezing products to the Plaintiff only, and did not instruct the Plaintiff to “mambling” for transporting freezing products and hot-resistant products together, and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as a justifiable act with refusing the instant contract of carriage. 9 The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant unilaterally terminated the instant entrustment contract of this case, 8 and 15.