1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the determination of the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the appraisal conducted by the appraiser C of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff is a person operating the combined processing company with the trade name of D, and the Defendant is a person operating the combined processing company with the trade name of E, and the Plaintiff is a person operating the combined sales company with the company operating the combined sales company. ② The Plaintiff agreed to supply the processed materials (MD seal Pumel, hereinafter referred to as “instant materials”) that the Defendant performed the mid- and upper-level work with the Defendant on the processed materials (MD seal Pumel, hereinafter referred to as “the instant materials”), and then again to the Defendant. ③ Accordingly, the Plaintiff had agreed to supply them to the Defendant: (i) the processed materials of this case from around that time to March 4, 2014, which the Defendant had completed the processing work with the Defendant from around KRW 17,505,00,000 to March 4, 2014.

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 1,00,00,00 for the test cost of KRW 490,000 due to the Defendant’s occupational negligence. However, according to Article 5(1) of the transaction agreement made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to deliver the contractual goods to the place of delivery determined by mutual agreement with the Plaintiff’s responsibility and expenses. As such, the Plaintiff appears not to have any ground to separately claim the cost of the goods to the Defendant in addition to the processing cost. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not have any evidence to support that the test cost of the Plaintiff’s claim was incurred due to the Defendant’s occupational negligence, or that the cost was KRW 1,00,000,00 for the Defendant’s lower limit

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff's argument is the second part of the materials of this case due to negligence in the plaintiff's work.