1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and sells clothes under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who manufactures and sells clothes under the trade name of “D.”

On May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the Defendant, up to August 10, 2012, under which the Defendant made the winter 1,2, and 3 as indicated below, and supplied the Plaintiff with the price of KRW 45,50,000 (hereinafter “instant primary contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff issued the Defendant a provisional coefficient mark equivalent to KRW 12,00,000 as the down payment for the instant primary contract.

On the other hand, at the bottom of the contract in which the instant primary contract was entered, the statement stating that “the time of delay in payment without any prior grounds (e.g., 3 to 10%) shall be deducted at the time of settlement.

After the 352F 20,000 Brazil 35,220,400,000 Brazil 352 F. The Plaintiff entered into an additional contract with the Defendant on August 16, 2012, with the content that the Defendant will supply the Plaintiff with the original 2,00,000 Gabs 353 G Bbs 35,200,000 Gabs 350,000 Gabs 350,000 Gabs 35,000 Gabs 35,500,000 additional 45,000.

In addition, on September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff issued an additional order to the Defendant for punishment of 1,000,000,000.

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff issued the Defendant a provisional coefficient mark equivalent to KRW 9,000,000 as the down payment for the instant secondary contract at that time.

After the first contract of this case, the Defendant stated to the Plaintiff that “the local Chinese factory producing clothing is closed temporarily and thus the delivery is delayed.”

On October 10, 2012, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with 70 clothes under the instant first contract (No. 3 of the aforementioned table). However, the remainder of the clothing under the instant first contract was not supplied upon the Plaintiff’s multiple requests and demands.

The Defendant is not a good stipulated in each of the instant contracts to the Plaintiff around December 2012.