1. The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the manufacturing business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in the printing business under the trade name of “D.”

On April 2017, the Plaintiff is a household timber that was processed from Non-Party E as the weak of MDF Medirum Dins, by extracting the fiber quality of trees from Non-Party E, and by mixing them with the cating agents with heat and pressure.

The delivery of the PET film was awarded.

B. On May 9, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to print the PE film (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, when the Plaintiff provided the PE film center, the Defendant entered into the contract with the PE film center (hereinafter “instant contract”).

Accordingly, the standard of the PET film board provided by the plaintiff to the defendant is 30 meters thick, 1,320 meters wide, about 8,000 meters in length.

(c)

On August 2017, the Plaintiff discovered that there was a substitute phenomenon that the Defendant’s printing film was confirmed, and asked the Defendant to the effect that “F, as an employee of the Defendant’s side, has never existed in the process of unity, is not a problem.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asked the company engaged in the joint work, such as G Co., Ltd., about the degree of 200 meters of the film printed by G Co., Ltd., however, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that “the resolution of the state phenomenon is technically impossible and may not be used by combining the film due to the state phenomenon.”

In addition, E, a corporation that received the above printed films from the Plaintiff, demanded re-delivery on the ground that they are in the film supplied by the Plaintiff, but notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the supply contract as the Plaintiff failed to re-delivery within the payment period.

(d)

On the other hand, the Plaintiff paid KRW 550,400 as a sample price on July 13, 2017, and KRW 2,502,90 as a work price for the portion printed on August 28, 2017, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 5-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 7 and 8, appraiser.