1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts and determination

A. As to this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasons for this decision are as stated in Articles 2 through 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Determination on a claim for payment of the price”. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[The first instance court is also the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Company”).

The Defendant Company also dismissed the claim for damages under the claim B of the claim and the Defendant Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

(B) Since only filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the above judgment No. 4 stated “3. Judgment on the Claim for Damages” goes beyond the scope of the judgment of this court).

In accordance with the agreement of July 17, 2013 (see evidence A(2) of this case), the Plaintiff Company is "the family list of this case" of 40 tons or less listed in the attached list, which was established in the factory of the Defendant Company.

(2) The Defendant Company: (a) the Defendant Company: (b) melting the metal scrap in a luminous channel and transporting it to the manufacturing department using the same equipment as the instant heading; and (c) was a manufacturer of the same steel product as the distribution or machinery (see, e.g., the second page of the examination record of F). The instant heading was installed within the Defendant factory and used in the production as follows (Evidence 6-2); (d) repair between the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff Company’s recovery and repair (see, e.g., evidence 5); and (e) obtained certification from the E Technology Institute on August 26, 2013 that the instant heading meets the safety and health standards (see, e.g., evidence 12 and 13). In light of the foregoing, the Defendant Company’s assertion on July 17, 2013 agreement (see, e., evidence 2 of this case) cannot be accepted.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff company's claim should be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder should be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

The judgment of the court of first instance is the same.