The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant (Counterclaim) who ordered payment in excess of the following amount.

1. In the first instance trial within the scope of the judgment of the court, the Plaintiff filed a principal lawsuit claiming the delivery of the processed machine of this case, compensation for damages, and penalty, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim claiming the return of the purchase price following the cancellation of the instant processing contract.

The court of first instance accepted the entire claim for the delivery of the processing machine of this case, part of the claim for damages, and part of the counterclaim, and dismissed the claim for penalty for breach of contract of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant filed an incidental appeal against the part of the penalty in the principal lawsuit.

Therefore, this Court is to judge only the cited part of the claim for damages and the dismissed part of the claim for penalty.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, with the exception of the newly used part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the provisional disclosure of this case" under Section 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part concerning the claim for damages equivalent to the royalty for the processing period of this case from Sections 7 to 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the newly used part concerning the claim for damages equivalent to the royalty for the processing period from

It shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, the part on the delivery of the processing machine of this case and the part on the counterclaim of this case are excluded).

A. The fact that Article 7 of the instant contract provides that “In the event that the contract is terminated due to the reasons under Article 6, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the ordinary usage fee from the delivery of the goods to the time of returning the goods” is recognized as above.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a result of the delivery of the instant processing machine, should compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the usage fee from December 1, 2017 to the completion date of the delivery of the said processing period.

B. According to the appraisal result by the appraiser C of the first instance trial on the basis of the calculation of damages, the monthly user fee of the instant processing machine is 7,632,00.