The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of this case on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the above fugitive film produced by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) has the quality and performance stipulated in the agreement with the Defendant, and that the Defendant is obliged to pay the price for the fugitive film, which is an accessory object. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of remuneration not only terminated the last process of production (I950 Bente 302,294) but also has the function that is generally required by social norms.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the contractor’s liability to prove the contractor’s right to claim remuneration or by failing to exhaust all necessary reasons.

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, based on its reasoning, the lower court determined the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s damages to be borne by the Plaintiff in relation to “RMA” arising from July 2013, as KRW 4,387,783,868, and acknowledged that there was a settlement agreement that deducts the Plaintiff from the price of fugitive prevention film supplied to the Defendant from May 2012 to July 2013, and on the other hand, recognized that such settlement agreement was caused by the Plaintiff’s mistake.