1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: (a) adding evidence No. 5 on the grounds of recognizing the facts set forth in paragraph (1) among the grounds for the judgment of the first instance; and (b) adding the following contents to subsequent No. 4, No. 9 of the judgment of the first instance, it is identical to the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance; and (c) thereby, this part

4) In such circumstances, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the ground that the damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from the day following the date of the last settlement of the instant goods payment claim to the date of the second deposit is not included in the instant secondary deposit, and thus, part of the Plaintiff was null and void as part of the deposit. In order to correct the defects of partial deposit pursuant to the purport of the first instance judgment on April 4, 2016 after filing an appeal, the Defendant deposited 11,174,236 won, subtracting the principal of the instant goods payment claim and the damages for delay up to April 4, 2016 from the total of 156,394,031 won, which was already deposited at KRW 145,219,795 won, as the principal of the instant goods payment claim and the damages for delay up to April 4, 2016 (hereinafter the final deposit in this case).

2. 2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was liable to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the price of the instant goods at the first instance court, and the Defendant’s second deposit of this case is a part of the deposit and becomes effective.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserted in the first instance court that all of the instant claim for the price of goods was extinguished as the second deposit, and the court asserted that the instant claim for the price of goods was extinguished after making the final deposit in accordance with the judgment of the first instance. The Plaintiff also extinguished the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods by making the final deposit in this case.