1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain by the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the matters for which the defendant asserts in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) No. 1 argues that the net B’s debt is KRW 50,883,883,83 among the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 8-1 through No. 4 (each note) is related to the sale of by-products of cattle. Article 20 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Daegu Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Operation and Management of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Wholesale Market (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”), which was enforced on April 5, 2008, provides that “The sale and purchase of by-products, etc., other than the bubs of cattle and pigs, shall be conducted by means of auction, bidding, free trade, etc., and its detailed guidelines shall be determined separately by the mayor.” Since the sale and purchase of by-products of cattle by-products of cattle is separately made from the sale and purchase of the bubs, it is clear that B is a trade entirely different from that of the intermediate wholesale business agreement that provided livestock products from the Plaintiff around November 2005.

In addition, according to the evidence No. 8-5 (each note) of this case, it is evident that the accounts receivable under the intermediary wholesale agreement of this case should be maintained within 49 million won, and that separate security is provided. The above evidence No. 8-5 of this case is not based on the intermediary wholesale agreement of this case, but through a separate transaction.

In addition, according to the evidence No. 8-6 (each note) of this case, in relation to the sales of June 28, 2013, C and D purchased pigs worth KRW 53,512,483, a total of KRW 53,512,483, the above KRW 53,512,483 should be excluded from the obligations under the intermediary wholesale agreement of this case.

Ultimately, among the joint and several liability obligations sought against the Defendant, the Plaintiff is a transaction entirely different from the instant intermediate wholesale agreement.