1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the Defendant B’s appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where Paragraph 2 added a judgment on the assertion

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s agreement on extension of the payment period and exemption from the delivery of some of the alleged items is conditional declaration of intention on the condition that they are properly supplied within the above period.

However, although the number of cryp bargaining sets supplied by Defendant B is inconsistent with the generally accepted quantity, it is not consistent with the supply ratio by water size and a considerable number of defective goods, so Defendant B should be deemed as having failed to fulfill the conditions set by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Since the above agreement appears to be conclusive in terms of the intent to extend the payment period itself, it is difficult to conclude it as conditional declaration of intention. 2) Even if the above agreement is conditional declaration of intent, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted for the following reasons. A) Defendant B’s request to the Plaintiff on November 30, 2017, for the production and delivery of the Defendant B’s product under the supply contract (Evidence No. 1,990), Defendant B’s request to the Plaintiff on December 13, 2017, 5,692, and 5,077 bit on December 18, 2017, as well as the fact that each of the supply of the Defendant’s product was made on December 18, 2017.

(See Articles 1, 2(1), 3, and 4). However, only if a written request for production of a part of a balone's balone (No. 12, No. 12 against A, and W and X's own use as children) was submitted as evidence, the written request for production of the remaining balone's balone's ticket, etc. is not submitted as evidence, and other products supplied by Defendant B are the ratio of supply by water size as set out in the production request, etc.