1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The Plaintiff’s primary grounds for appeal as to the main lawsuit and counterclaim cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. However, even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance was added to the evidence submitted in the court of first instance (written evidence Nos. 22 through 30, witness D and E of the court of first instance), the fact-finding and judgment in the court of first instance are justifiable.

Accordingly, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s assertion added or emphasized by this court as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) With respect to the contract of this part of this claim 1, in addition to KRW 10,00,000 for the goods that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff, the items additionally supplied and installed upon the Defendant’s request by the Plaintiff [1] items to be additionally supplied and installed [2.1, 2.1, 67,571,296 won for the additional supply of goods [3,00 won for repair],

shall be liable to pay in addition thereto.

On the other hand, with respect to the non-construction or defective parts related to the contract No. 1, the defendant demanded at the time that the plaintiff set up a "man-dong unit" on the ground that there is a lack space for installing a portable unit, and thus, the plaintiff set up a multiple unit unit. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was non-construction, and most of the defective parts appraised by the appraiser are minor or minor.