1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for adding a judgment on the defendant's argument newly raised in the trial at the court of the first instance, it is identical to the part corresponding to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the Defendant’s portion of the instant total contract provides that the Plaintiff shall bear the actual cost incurred in returning type A products due to the purchaser’s simple and variable. In light of the unique nature of the sale of home shopping, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall make oral settlement agreements between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to bear the cost of returning 80% of the total amount of return received by the home shopping company, regardless of the reason for return. As such, the Plaintiff shall bear the cost of returning 10,850 of the total amount of return received from the GS Home shopping from January 1 to October 2013, 2013 to 13,563 up to 80% of the total amount of return received from the GS Home shopping, 10,14,750 won, 4,17,250 won, 18, 201, 30, 10, 3050, 10, 201, 136, 201, 136, 2014.7

According to the evidence in the first instance trial, ① the Plaintiff shall bear and deal with the expenses incurred in returning goods by simply changing the buyer’s simple, without any special reason, pursuant to Article 10(2) of the instant total sales contract: Provided, That when the Defendant re-packageds, the parts and subsidiary materials shall be supplied equivalent to the cost; ② the buyer’s request for return of part of the A-type product sold through GS home shopping was made.