1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment is added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional Judgment - Plaintiff’s assertion of omission of judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the first instance court's selective consolidation of the request for extradition pursuant to the transfer security agreement was unlawful since the first instance court omitted the judgment on the above request while it rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's request.

B. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking “the purchase price for machinery and delay damages” with the Defendant. The Plaintiff submitted to the first instance court on November 22, 2016 an application for modification of the purport of and cause for the claim to add “request for delivery pursuant to the security agreement” to the “request for transfer”. However, on November 28, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted to the first instance court on November 28, 2016 the written withdrawal of the application for modification of the purport of and cause for the claim (hereinafter “written withdrawal of this case”) stating that “the Plaintiff withdraws the request for modification of the purport of and cause for the claim” from the first instance court on November 22, 2016 (hereinafter “written withdrawal”). The withdrawal of this case reaches the Defendant on November 28, 2016, and the Defendant did not raise any objection within two weeks thereafter.

C. According to the above facts, the withdrawal of this case refers to the withdrawal of part of a lawsuit against the "request for extradition under an agreement for security" added by the plaintiff on November 22, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu450, Aug. 23, 1983). The defendant should be deemed to have consented to the withdrawal of the lawsuit because he did not raise any objection within 2 weeks from the date of receiving the written withdrawal of this case (Article 266(6) of the Civil Procedure Act), and the plaintiff among the lawsuit of this case.