All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be the expenses for appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this case is cited including summary language pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance, Part 9 "BT" is replaced by "BON".

Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance court is "not to exceed" in the first instance judgment.

In the judgment of the first instance, it is assumed that the phrase “it was implied” of the first instance judgment No. 12 is read as “it was implied.”

On December 2, 2016, Nos. 14 and 15 of the judgment of the first instance, “The entry of No. 17 of the A is insufficient to recognize it only with the entries of No. 17, and the entries of No. 18 of the evidence No. 17 and No. 18 of the A,” were planned to be supplied on December 2, 2016. D actually accepted 122,368 of them from the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient reason to recognize that the price was applied at a discount due to the rate of reduction of the instant Titts.

Part 13 of the judgment of the first instance, “only the description of evidence No. 38,” in Part 12, 13, including evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence Nos. 4, 20, 38, 39, 45, 46, and 47.

The part of the first instance judgment Nos. 14, 3, and 4 is as follows: “(i) The Plaintiff appears to have not prepared a contract specifying the terms and conditions of supply for his own interest at the time of entering into the instant goods supply contract.”

① At the time of entering into the instant goods supply contract, the Plaintiff did not prepare a written contract specifying the terms and conditions of the supply. Accordingly, during the process of performing the said goods supply contract, the Plaintiff could have easily changed the terms and conditions of the supply by requiring the Defendant to submit an additional demand, and accepting the said condition without any specific objection by Defendant B, thereby resulting in the performance of the said goods supply contract led to the Plaintiff’s intent