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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose purpose is the paper processing business, etc., such as the framed Products, and the Defendant is a company with the purpose of processing, manufacturing, and selling agricultural and fishery products.

From around 2011, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the pelpel-type products, such as paper World Cup and paper gambling. The Plaintiff first sent a written estimate stating the name, size, unit price, etc. to the Defendant, and then made a transaction by which the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the Defendant’s consent thereto according to such written estimate.

B. In April 25, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant again agreed on the unit price of the five pelpel paper products supplied by the Plaintiff through a written estimate from April 25, 2016 (the bottom of the said written estimate includes the phrase “a separate consultation at the time of price increase” in the said written estimate). The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the said five pel paper products from around that time according to the said written estimate.

In addition, from August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the ice World Cup (120gambox) product, which was not included in the above quotation according to the Defendant’s additional order, with the product as a whole, under the circumstance that the unit price agreement was not yet reached through a separate quotation.

C. However, the Plaintiff sent an official letter to the Defendant, around June 2016, stating that “The price of the aggregate sheet has increased since June 2, 2016 due to the imbalance in supply and demand of the local aggregate sheet, and around August 12, 2016, the price of the original sheet shall be applied in a lump sum by 15-30% without delay from August 1, 2016, and the processing cost shall be increased by taking account of productivity, such as the aggregate sheet.”

Afterward, the Plaintiff applied the unit price of the similar product in the quotation dated April 25, 2016, which was newly determined by the Plaintiff, to the Defendant on September 9, 2016, only for the ice World Cup among the above six products.