1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an agricultural partnership that produces and distributes agricultural products, and the Defendant is a person who sells agricultural products.

B. On September 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant to be supplied with 1,100 won per kilogramma (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”), and on November 16, 2015, received a total of 31,011kig from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant meat”), and paid 34,112,100 won to the Defendant around that time.

C. On February 2016, the Plaintiff found the fact that the instant scrap horse was decomposed in the course of washing the instant scrap horse for ex-factorying around February 2016, and found that the instant scrap horse was infected by black brue as a result of checking the cause thereof.

The plaintiff above C.

As stated in the preceding paragraph, immediately after finding any defect in the scrap of the relevant scrap body, the defendant shall be notified several times during a reasonable period from the date of discovery to the date of filing the lawsuit in this case, and the defendant shall be requested to confirm the condition of the scrap body, and the return of the scrap body price was requested, but the defendant did not comply with the request, but the plaintiff is currently keeping the scrap body in the plaintiff's warehouse.

E. Meanwhile, on June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 4,600,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay this up to the date of closing the argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 (including each number), the result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser B by the court of the first instance and the fact-finding result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 did not have any defects under the supply contract of this case, despite the contractual obligation under which the defendant shall supply the plaintiff with any defects.