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 ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows each evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance can be deemed legitimate

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows, except for the addition of the following ‘2. Additional Judgment' as to the argument that the defendant emphasizes in this court, and therefore it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is the amount of the sales price agreed upon when the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant supply contract around October 2017.

As to this, the defendant shall set forth 49,950,000 won (excluding value-added tax (hereinafter the same shall apply) stated in the third written estimate of September 21, 2017.

) The claim that, while cancelling “vinyl chloride Packaging (2,300,000)”, the sales amount was finally changed to KRW 47,650,00], the final agreement was reached.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that, after the third estimate, the Defendant requested the manufacture of the “patch-type automatic taxation machine” in lieu of a short product, the Plaintiff made a final agreement by changing the purchase price into KRW 54,450,00 (i.e., KRW 49,950,50,000 as stated in the third estimate (i.e., KRW 49,950,500 as additional purchase price of KRW 4,50,000 as stated in the third estimate, and then changed into KRW 52,150,000).

B. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document, unless there is any counter-proof, and shall not reject it without any reasonable explanation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da27055, Sept. 14, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff also acknowledges that the standard form contract for purchase of goods, which was made ex post facto, (Evidence No. 1) was authentic, and thus, the sales price of the instant supply contract is the same.