1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the cases where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Article 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "The above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion" part of the judgment of the court of first instance stating that "It is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion even if considering all of the evidence as above and the evidence additionally submitted by the plaintiff in the trial and the circumstances of its assertion."

(b) Forms 7 through 7 of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following parts:

4) In addition, on March 9, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant ELElectronic with the Changwon District Court 2009Gahap2300. At the time of the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s complaint, which was submitted at the time of the said lawsuit, was “the Plaintiff’s own person is a tort and is negligent in completing the instant agreement and neglecting its implementation, thereby resulting in the lawsuit,” and that the Plaintiff did not explicitly assert the oral agreement or re-agreement as asserted in the instant case.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Part 16 of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance stating that “There is no mentioning about the quantity guarantee,” and that “the contents of the re-agreement on July 30, 2009, as well as the contents of the re-agreement on October 30, 2008, only implement the contents of the agreement, and there is no part to be additionally borne by Defendant ELE.” In light of the contents and purport of the above language itself, it is deemed that the agreement in October 2008 refers to the contents of the agreement in this case, and therefore, it is based on the contents of the above e-mail.