1. All of the appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal claim and the counterclaim, and the counterclaim claims expanded by this court.

1. The basic facts and

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on this claim is as follows, except where the court renders dance 13 of the judgment of the first instance as “products” as “products,” and therefore, the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion and counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s assertion amount of KRW 4,577,891,990 against the Defendant alleged by the Plaintiff is the amount determined by manipulating the transaction ledger by lowering the unit price and quantity of the Gyeyang Land Products supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

The defendant continuously demanded the plaintiff to settle the price properly, and the plaintiff neglected it.

The legitimate price of goods is 4,39,153,160 won.

Until now, the defendant's total amount of KRW 4,481,925,00 as the price for goods to the plaintiff 4,481,925,00 as the price for goods is the defendant's total of KRW 4,483,925,00 as stated in the three pages of the application for change of the purport and cause of the claim

B. The note was made.

Therefore, the Plaintiff should return to the Defendant the amount of KRW 82,771,840 (=4,481,925,00 won - 4,339,153,160) that the Plaintiff received as unjust enrichment from the Defendant, and the delay damages therefrom.

B. (i) Each part of the evidence Nos. 1 to 96 (including the number with each number) was written to determine the amount of the goods unfairly by manipulating the trading ledger by the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant neglected the demand for settlement of the price, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

B. The Plaintiff’s trading ledger (Evidence A6) reflects the actual transaction details between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the written evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8, the testimony of the witness D of the first instance trial, the response of the submission of tax information to the director of the tax office and the head of the tax office:

Therefore, it is rather.