1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion was made by the defendant's employee B that he would supply the plaintiff with the plaintiff's chickens amounting to KRW 20,000,000,000, and the defendant paid KRW 20,176,000 to the defendant. Since the defendant supplied the plaintiff only with the chickens amounting to KRW 4,176,00,00 at the market price, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 15,824,000 (=20,000,000-4,176,000), which is the balance after deducting the market price of the chickens supplied by the defendant from the price of the chickens paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 2, although the plaintiff paid 20,000,000 won to the defendant on April 1, 2015, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above facts of recognition and the statement in Gap evidence No. 5 are sufficient to recognize that the defendant supplied the plaintiff with only a chickens equivalent to 4,176,00 won at the market price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination on a counterclaim

A. From March 18, 2015 to April 10, 2015, the Defendant asserted by the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with a chickens equivalent to KRW 57,312,950 in total. The Plaintiff paid KRW 55,00,000 to the Defendant with the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of KRW 2,312,950 (=57,312,950 KRW 5,950-5,000) and the payment of the payment for delay thereof.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the other party who entered into a supply contract with the Defendant is recognized to be C, a stock company operated by the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff, and the other party who entered into a supply contract with the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are dismissed in its entirety as they are without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.