1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the judgment of the new argument raised by the plaintiff in the court of first instance as set forth in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

[Attachment, the part written in the judgment of the court of first instance was deleted from 7th to 5th of the judgment. The phrase “B” No. 9 is added to 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance. The phrase “Article 68(3) of the Civil Act” as “Article 688(3) of the Civil Act.” The phrase “III” as “Article 688(3) of the judgment of the court of first instance 12th to 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted from 0th of March 4, 2016 to 0th of March, 7, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to submit to the Defendant the bill of this case for the treatment of the Defendant’s products, which had been sent to the Plaintiff by the date following the lapse of 0th of March 7, 2016, which had not been sent by the Defendant to the Defendant’s request for the negotiation of the instant products and the Defendant’s delivery of the instant air transport contract to the Plaintiff on March 36, 16th of this case.