1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff supplied liquid acids to the Defendant’s aquaculture, but did not receive KRW 11,373,00, out of the price, and claimed a counterclaim for payment of the said money. The Defendant, due to the Plaintiff’s fault in managing and replacing the oxygen tank and piping installed in the Defendant aquaculture, caused damage of at least 100,000 won as a group of death, and claimed a counterclaim for payment of the amount equivalent to the damages.

The court of first instance determined that only the portion equivalent to KRW 9,817,600 among the amount claimed by the plaintiff as well as the portion equivalent to KRW 10,560,00 among the amount claimed by the defendant as well as the amount equivalent to KRW 10,560,00 among the amount claimed by the defendant as well as the amount equivalent to KRW 10,560,00 among the amount claimed by the defendant as well as the amount equivalent to KRW 9,817,60,00 among the amount claimed by the defendant as a counterclaim, according to the defendant's allegation of set-off, only KRW 742,4

However, the plaintiff did not file an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, and since the defendant appealed against the defendant in whole, the scope of the judgment of the court is limited to the part against the defendant (part of the part against the defendant among the counterclaims), and if the appellate court rejected the part against which the defendant was recognized as the automatic claim of the offset in this case for the reason that the occurrence of the automatic claim is not recognized, it is not permitted because it changes the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant who is the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84892, May 24, 2013). Although the scope of adjudication by this Court is limited to the scope of an appeal as above, it is inevitable to examine the validity of a claim that falls under the scope of adjudication in order to examine the validity of a claim that is within the scope of adjudication, the overall examination of the relevant claim, such as the occurrence of the claim, etc., is inevitable, and a counterclaim

2. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a legal entity that engages in the gas sales business, and the defendant is the defendant.