1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

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

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following reasons. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The highest part of the judgment of the first instance is that “A-1, A-2” in the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is “A-1, A-2,” “E” in the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance as “heat media boiler (A-1), gas burner (A-2), and “E” in the fourth part as “the witness E of the first instance court,” and each “F” in the fourth part and fifth part, 8, 10, and 12 as “J”.

The 6th of the first instance judgment stated that “I never existed,” and that “I had to repair, at that time, the Plaintiff’s side was also recognized,” and that “The 6th of the 6th and 14th of the 14th of the 6th “The quantity of the flaps, and the flaz are different tree stuffs” are not containers, but the flaz is all different tree stuffs and the flaz is a large quantity.”

The first instance court's first instance court's 6th to 7th instance court's 6th instance judgment are as follows.

5 The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant shall be liable for damages arising therefrom, as it was caused by corrosion, etc. in the course of storing the instant machinery in the port in China upon the Defendant’s rejection of the request for transportation of the instant machinery due to the delay in the completion of the construction of the factory. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s demand that the date of transportation be delayed due to the delay in the completion of the construction of the factory, and transported the instant machinery in the port in China. Thus, it can be said that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the extension of the delivery date of the instant machinery. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obliged to maintain the instant machinery’s performance as guaranteed in the contract until the delivery date agreed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is rejected on a different premise.