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

Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The court of first instance, even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the plaintiff was presented to this court, the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant). 2. On the second part of the second part of the first instance court, the "main letter" in the fourth part of the second part of the second part of the second part of the judgment, which was used on February 11, 201, "F 10, 14" in the third part, "2.", "6, 10, 14, 14, 3)" in the third part, "B," "B," and 14, 8, "the defendant" in the fourth part of the first part, "the plaintiff", and "the defendant" in the third part of the third part, "the plaintiff", respectively.

Nos. 10 to 17 of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.

3) The Defendant asserts that, on January 1, 2013, the purpose of the instant lending contract was achieved by the Defendant paying KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff, and that the legal relationship pertaining to the instant lending relationship was all terminated.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in the above evidence, the defendant bears the obligation to purchase an average of 100 tons of LPG 100 tons a month until the repayment of at least KRW 300 million, and is deemed to have violated the obligation to purchase an average of 100 tons of LPG 100 tons a month during the 2012 period recognized as effective as the loan contract of this case, and it is reasonable to interpret the loan contract of this case as setting the obligation to pay the agreed amount due to the breach of obligation of 2012, regardless of

The part of “as seen earlier from one point of view to one another,” from the 2nd to 18th 3rd eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.