1. The appeal filed by the Lessee and the claim filed by the Lessee additionally in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. After filing an appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that “Plaintiff” in the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to “1. Basic Facts in the judgment of the court of first instance” in addition to the dismissal of “Counterclaim Defendant” and “Defendant B” as “Counterclaim Plaintiff”, and therefore, they are cited as they are, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The party's assertion on the counterclaim; and

A. The fish sales contract of this case was established in accordance with the fish acquisition agreement of the Counterclaim Plaintiff’s assertion. However, the above sales contract was lawfully cancelled by the declaration of intent of the Counterclaim Plaintiff on the grounds of non-performance due to the non-performance refusal by the Counterclaim Defendant, and thus, the Counterclaim Defendant should pay damages for damages the amount of KRW 209,373,50, which is equivalent to the market price of the fish that was discarded to the Counterclaim Plaintiff, and damages for delay.

Even if the sales contract was not rescinded, the fish of this case was abolished due to the enemy that occurred while the counter-party Defendant, who was the buyer delayed the obligation to take over the fish and pay the price, and thus, the counter-party Defendant may claim the counter-party performance against the counter-party pursuant to Article 538(1) of the Civil Act providing that “if one of the parties to the bilateral contract is unable to perform his/her obligation due to any cause attributable to the obligee, or if it becomes impossible to perform his/her obligation due to any cause not attributable to both parties during the obligee’s place of receipt.”

Even if the fish sales contract of this case was not established in preliminary place, the counterclaim Defendant is liable and liable for the remaining fish within the remainder due to the agreement on the sales of the fish plantation of this case, and due to the non-performance of the agreement, the non-resident suffers from the loss of fish to be destroyed by the death of fish in the fish plantation. Therefore, the counterclaim Defendant is liable to compensate for the loss.

B. The fish sales contract of this case asserted by the counterclaim Defendant is an important matter.