1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff engaged in a ice cream manufacturing business has stored ice cream products in the freezing warehouse consisting of two freezing rooms and three cooling units (hereinafter “instant freezing warehouse”). A large number of ice cream products have been generated in the freezing warehouse of the instant case (this case’s freezing warehouse is operated at the low temperature, and the freezing warehouse is attached to the smoker, which is the indoor cooling machine, and it is necessary to reduce the cooling capacity of the cooling cooling system, and it is necessary to conduct cryp removal). On May 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to conduct the cryption on the freezing warehouse of the instant case.

B. The Defendant, via B on June 1, 2015, installed C Devices (hereinafter “instant devices”) in the freezing warehouse of this case, and received KRW 2 million out of the costs of installation 3.3 million from the Plaintiff.

C. On the other hand, the existing process applied to the freezing of this case was the method of sprinking the upper signal emitted every certain hour by sphers. However, unlike the existing method of periodically refining the equipment installed by the Defendant using sphers, the Defendant holds patent and trademark rights in a way of determining the point of time by using the wind pressure (i.e., measuring the intensity of the wind resistances that pass through the cooling season due to the growth of sphers) before and after the coolant of cirr, unlike the existing method of periodically refining the equipment of this case.

However, water sprink for three freezings of the freezing storage of this case was connected to a single pipe. Accordingly, water sprink has been sprinked in the remaining coolants, which did not cause water sprinkling signals as well as the coolants that caused water sprinkling signals. As a result, the water sprinking capacity of the freezing storage of this case has been deteriorated due to the increase in the frequency of water sprinking.

E. The Plaintiff asserted that the freezing capacity of the freezing warehouse of this case was lowered to the Defendant, and the Defendant via B.