1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following parts, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part to be used by the court is "Witness D" of Article 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is "D. of the court of first instance."

From Nos. 6 to 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the parties agreed to set the unit price by converting the 500 km of sugar contained in the As-conck bags into the unit of 15 km. However, as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff agreed to set the unit price for sugar supplied by the Plaintiff as the amount of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to believe partial testimony of the witness D of the court of first instance in light of the relationship with the said witness, the testimony of the witness E of the court of first instance against the relationship with the said witness, and the testimony of the witness E of the court of first instance, etc., and it is insufficient to recognize it only by the entries of Nos. 1, 5, and 6 of the evidence and the fact-finding of the first instance court of first instance as the result of the fact-finding on the As-ypyd food farming association of this court

Part D and E's testimony in Part 4 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "the testimony of the witness E of the court of first instance and the witness of the court of first instance".

After the first instance court’s decision No. 4, “Transaction 14,” the following: “The Defendant asserted that he supplied propool lease and alteration to the Plaintiff from around 2012, but there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the above propool lease and alteration purchase price or expressed his intent to deduct the said price from the Plaintiff’s obligation.”

Under the fourth sentence of the first instance court, the second sentence "date of the pronouncement of this judgment" shall be "date of the pronouncement of the first instance court of this case".

In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and both the plaintiff and the defendant are justified.