1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s improper businessman for six months on February 22, 2018, which the Plaintiff reported to the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance (from 5th to 3th 1th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e

2. The non-existence of the grounds for disposition 1 by the Plaintiff was examined in advance at the delivery place, and the Plaintiff produced and supplied the most suitable goods at that place.

In the case of Daejeon B’s recommendation for delivery, the Plaintiff confirmed that the wall to be attached with the picture is fluorous on the upper part of the wall, and supplied the thickness by adjusting it to a 11mm more than 9m, the standard size of the contract of this case, so as to prevent the cluor from protruding out of the cluorum, and so as to prevent the cluoring out of the wall.

The Plaintiff, instead, made and supplied the thickness of the steering day more than 20m more than 30m more than that of the contract of this case, and added a three-dimensional reduction on the wall.

In the case of recommendation for supply request from Gyeongbuk-gun, in order to confirm that the brick wall has been installed on the top of the place where the sacrife is to be attached, and to prevent the sacrife from getting in depth into the wall, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied the sacrife with a thickness of 14 meters in thickness as a method of cutting down from the high heat.

The forest log supplied by the plaintiff is more than the standard of the contract of this case and the place of its installation is more appropriate.

The Plaintiff supplied goods to Daejeon and Gyeongbuk-gun and received an inspection from each of the above end-user institutions.

Therefore, Article 76(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act does not constitute “a person who, in the performance of a contract, commits a fraudulent, improper, or unjustifiable act or committed an unlawful act.”

On the other hand, the plaintiff produced and supplied the goods as above, which led to the increase in the production cost, and there is no unfair benefit.

Each of the above end-user institutions is from the Plaintiff.