1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

Except for dismissal or addition as follows, this Court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(A) The fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is justifiable even after examining the evidence that the defendant submitted in the trial. 2. Judgment on the defendant's argument

A. The gist of the assertion ① The Plaintiff is not entitled to claim management fees of KRW 10,49,921 (209,98,422 won) out of the price of the goods, as the Plaintiff neglected to perform the obligation (production process management, compliance with the payment period, and quality control) under the “profac contract” (production cost management).

② The Defendant paid KRW 3,105,300 directly to the clothing production plant located in G in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on behalf of C and the Plaintiff, thereby gaining profit from exempting payment without any legal cause, and thereby, the Defendant sustained the same amount as the Defendant suffered loss. Accordingly, the said unjust enrichment return claim set off against the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of goods.

③ The Defendant paid KRW 3,426,540 as damages for delay to the customer on the wind that the Plaintiff delayed delivery and supplies defective products, and the Defendant incurred a loss equivalent to KRW 10,784,169 (net profit from the transaction with the relevant customer in 2018) due to the discontinuance of transaction with the existing customer, and thus, the Plaintiff’s damage claim shall be offset against the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the goods.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff failed to perform the obligation under the “profac contract” concluded with the Defendant, and based on which evidence Nos. 12 and 13 was presented.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a manufacturing consignment agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare the contract does not conflict between the parties, so it is difficult to conclude that the content of the contractual obligations owed by the Plaintiff based on the evidence No. 12 and 13 is the same as the Defendant’s assertion.