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

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the last sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance and the first sentence of the fifth line "when removing the machinery of this case" are as follows; the fifth and first sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance are as "when dismantling the machinery of this case"; and the second and first sentence of the first sentence are as "purchasing the machinery of this case" and the defendant's assertion is as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the corresponding part, and therefore, they are cited as it is in accordance with

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) Even if the instant mechanical consignment contract regarding the main lawsuit was reversed and the Defendant agreed to provide the Plaintiff with the introduction fee, the Plaintiff’s delegated affairs were reduced than the original obligation, and the Defendant’s promise to pay the introduction fee was made before the instant machinery arrives at the Defendant, so the Plaintiff’s remuneration shall be reduced in accordance with the good faith and the equitable principle.

(2) In relation to a counterclaim, the Plaintiff provided an erroneous explanation to the Defendant that customs duties are exempted on the import of the instant machinery from Germany. The Defendant, upon hearing such erroneous explanation and concluding a delegation contract with the Plaintiff, suffered damages from the import of the instant machinery and the payment of customs duties equivalent to KRW 47,248,570, and the Plaintiff shall pay the said money to the Defendant in compensation for damages caused by the tort.

Since the instant mechanical sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a consignment sales contract under the Commercial Act, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to secure performance under Article 105 of the Commercial Act.

The Plaintiff, while transporting the instant machinery, has a duty to cut off all water in the instant machinery and prevent danger to the same wave, but failed to properly perform this duty. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obliged to compensate for damages due to the malfunction of the instant machinery, which caused the occurrence of defects.

B. (1) As to the principal lawsuit, the Defendant’s instant delegation agreement with the Plaintiff.