1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 4,680,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from May 25, 2017 to November 16, 2017.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the goods identical to the “the details of the supply of the goods alleged by the Plaintiff” as indicated in the [Attachment 1], so the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 154,680,00 (= KRW 182,180,000) less the amount of KRW 154,680,00 paid out of the amount of the goods (= KRW 150,000,000 for the monetary reimbursement of KRW 4,680,000 for the monetary reimbursement of KRW 150,00).

The plaintiff did not reduce the purport of the claim of the main claim in compliance with the argument stated in the preparatory brief dated May 24, 2017.

B. Although the judgment of the defendant recognized that the plaintiff supplied goods such as the attached Form 2 “the details of the supply of goods asserted by the defendant,” the fact that the plaintiff supplied goods in excess of the above provision to the defendant is insufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including the paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, since the amount of the plaintiff's person who was paid the amount exceeds 102,245,00 won for the goods recognized by the defendant, the plaintiff's principal claim is without merit.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant suffered the same loss as indicated in [Attachment 3]’s claim on the part of the Plaintiff due to the defect or the weight of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not pay the price after bringing a total of 62 stuffs (62 million won) at the Ronam Pagro (62 million won) by selling the Defendant’s dead interest. As such, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Defendant damages and the price for goods (=28,510,000 won) and damages for delay.

B. It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff’s testimony on the evidence Nos. 9 through 17 and the witness C alone constitutes a defect or shortage in the kills supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and that the Defendant’s damage incurred therefrom reaches KRW 28,510,00,000, and otherwise.