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.

The court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the modification of the 6th or 18th or above of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[3] In a case where an obligor is liable for damages due to nonperformance against a obligee, liability of the obligor may be limited if there is any negligence on the obligee or if it is necessary to ensure the fairness of burden of damages. However, it is not permissible in principle for the obligor who intentionally caused nonperformance to take his responsibility on the ground of the obligee’s negligence. However, this is due to the obligor’s final possession of profits due to nonperformance, which would result in an outcome contrary to the principle of fair and good faith. Therefore, in a case where the above result is not caused, it is possible to limit liability based on the principle of comparative negligence or fairness (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da22369, Aug. 20, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2014Da22369, supra; Supreme Court Decision 20135, supra; Supreme Court Decision 2010Da371569, Jun. 20, 201).