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

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim of this case shall be deemed to be filed together.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4-1, and Eul evidence 4-2:

The plaintiff is the manufacture and sale company of the hair and leather products, and the defendant has completed business registration with the trade name of "B" and is engaged in the franchise processing business.

B. On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff provided the prime and subsidiary materials to the Defendant. The Defendant processed them and concluded a contract to manufacture and deliver each of the mins, minccke and mincke (hereinafter “instant contract”). In entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant contract, and in relation to the quantities of the original set, the volume of the products manufactured and supplied by the Defendant did not change the required quantity of the original set, etc. agreed between the parties, and the quantity of the products manufactured and supplied falls short of the required quantity of the products ordered by the Plaintiff. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant identified the cause of falling short, and if the Plaintiff is unable to recognize it, the Defendant agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for the value of the original materials without delay.

C. In accordance with the instant contract, the Defendant manufactured and supplied each of the minccot 26 punishment and minck 26 punishment to the Plaintiff, each of which was manufactured and supplied to the Plaintiff, each of which was manufactured and supplied to the Plaintiff, 203 punishment products in color, 128 punishment products in black color, 332 punishment products in black color, and 49 punishment products in non-fluor color.

The Defendant did not receive KRW 7,978,00, out of the consignment processing costs agreed upon by the Plaintiff under the instant contract for the instant contract, and paid the Plaintiff value-added tax of KRW 5,792,790 on April 24, 2014, when the Plaintiff was not paid value-added tax on the consignment processing costs under the instant contract for the instant consignment processing.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Plaintiff 1.