1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the following "the addition" between the 7th and 13th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main text of Article 420

B. In addition, when a claim arising from a commercial activity between merchants is due, the obligee may retain “goods or securities owned by the obligor due to his/her own commercial activity with the obligor” (see Article 58 of the Commercial Act). In such a case, the relationship between the claim and the right of retention is not necessary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84298, Dec. 22, 2011). In other words, the above facts are acknowledged as follows: “The Plaintiff had a claim for transportation charges of KRW 17,65,829 against the Defendant while he/she entered into a transportation contract on the instant cargo and possessed the instant cargo, and notified the Defendant that he/she would withhold the issuance of the bill of lading until he/she is paid the above transportation charges.” Ultimately, in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she would exercise a commercial lien on the instant cargo by means of the secured claim against the obligor, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff did not exercise the Plaintiff’s obligation under the cargo transportation contract.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the non-performance of obligation under a cargo transport contract is not acceptable.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal against it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.