1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 21,366,69 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from August 1, 2012 to July 15, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the mechanical manufacturing business with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a company engaged in the main manufacturing and selling business.

B. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant and the Plaintiff to manufacture and deliver 11 sets of private treatment labels (hereinafter “instant contract”) at the Defendant’s factory located in Sejong-si (hereinafter “instant contract”) by determining the construction cost as KRW 54 million.

C. On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to set the construction cost of KRW 25 million and set up the said Belgium 11 sets up (hereinafter “instant installation contract”). D.

On July 2012, the Plaintiff completed the production and installation of 11 Belgium consortium, which consists of 20 parts per set (five constituent parts consisting of presses, Modern, Schlage, sandd, screen straw, etc. (hereinafter “the first constituent parts of this case,” and the remainder 15 constituent parts “the second constituent parts”) at the Defendant’s factory.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1-1, Evidence No. 1-1, the result of verification by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On February 20, 2012, at the time of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff received only a contract for the manufacture and supply of the instant first component from the Defendant, and the remainder of the process was decided to be directly operated by the Defendant. After which, upon the Defendant’s request to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff additionally produced and installed the instant second component product, and the construction cost related to the instant additional construction is KRW 47,104,420. 2) The Plaintiff produced and installed the 11-year compound in accordance with the design drawings provided by the Defendant. The Plaintiff again manufactured or installed the parts of the manufacture and installation due to the circumstances, such as the design error in the drawings provided by the Defendant and the location of the Defendant’s factory. The construction cost related to the instant alteration is on December 22. 20.