1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Case summary

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) it is identical to the statement from 2, 14 to 4, 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B. The dismissal of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is based on the table No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 5, “F of September 27, 2014” as “ September 27, 2014,” and the “F of the witness” of the judgment of first instance No. 4 as “F of the witness of the court of first instance.”

2. Demand for principal lawsuit:

A. According to the facts acknowledged as the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 263,545,432 (= KRW 311,122,032 – KRW 47,576,600) excluding the remainder of KRW 47,576,600, which the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff from the aggregate of the above goods, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the day on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of complete payment, from April 2, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

(hereinafter “instant goods payment claim”). B.

1) On June 2014, the Defendant’s summary G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) of the Defendant’s assertion that the goods supply contract Nos. 3 and 4 of the instant case was revoked. Around June 2014, the Defendant requested the Defendant to supply inventory goods necessary for Cmerio (hereinafter “Cmerio”) and Cmerio to the Defendant. The Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to supply inventory goods related to Cmerio and Cmerio.

The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with inventory goods related to Kamero, such as the supply of the instant goods Nos. 3 and 4, but suspended the delivery of Amerio on October 20, 2014.

However, there is no value for inventory goods related to the above Kamero as long as they are not used as Kamero. Therefore, this part of the goods supply contract was cancelled due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation that makes it impossible to achieve its purpose.

Therefore, the defendant is about 3 and 4 of this case.