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 reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except where the following items are used or added by the court of first instance, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 7, "Woo 8" in Part 10, and "the testimony of witness F" in Part 7 shall be raised as follows.

【In each entry of evidence 8, each testimony of witness F of the first instance trial and witnessO of the first instance trial 】 The statement of evidence Nos. 8, 12, 17, and 19 of the evidence Nos. 7, 15, and 16 are different from each of the following parts:

【A’s testimony of each description of evidence Nos. 8, 12, 17, 19, and 30 through 42 and part of the testimony of the witness of the trial of the party to the trial of the party to the trial of the party to the trial of the first instance to “this court” in the last 7th place to “court of the first instance”, and “the witness” in the 9th 5th th e to “the witness of the court of the first instance

Part 10 of the 10th page 15 through 20 shall be applied as follows.

8) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated the obligation to maintain quality under the instant overall sales contract by continuously producing the same quality as the original prototype. However, the following circumstances, which may be known in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, including Gap evidence Nos. 3, 28, Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 12, P and O witnesses of the first instance trial, and the overall purport of testimony and arguments, i.e., the instant total sales contract provides the Defendant’s duty to maintain quality, but Article 3 provides the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the duty to cooperate in the quality improvement (see Article 3(3), e.g., Article 3(2)).