1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. The part of the first instance judgment, which the defendant asserts again in the trial, and the part which the defendant asserts again in the trial, are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the judgment is added to the part which the defendant asserts again in the trial and the part which the defendant asserts again in the trial, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence

On the fourth page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "processing Sea Route" in the 5th and 6th parallels shall be used as "processing Sea Route".

On May 23, 2014, the letter of first instance judgment No. 4 attached to the letter of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Before May 23, 2014," followed by the letter of "B around May 26, 2014."

On the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "31,148 won" of the first sentence shall be added to "31,146 won."

The first instance judgment of the first instance court, on May 31, 2015, is subject to the first instance judgment of the first instance court, with " May 31, 2015" as " May 31, 2014."

On the face of the first instance judgment, the second sentence’s “ June 7, 2015.” shall be followed as “ June 7, 2014.” under the second sentence.

2. Determination of the attached articles

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of termination, the Defendant asserted that the MM design was not offered as a security under the instant contract even after the Defendant commenced its business because it had understood the Defendant’s situation and subsequently offered it under mutual agreement. However, Article 10(2) of the instant contract provides that “the supply of goods shall be determined within the limit of the security provided by the Defendant to the M design” and even though the Defendant paid only KRW 20 million as the price for basic goods without providing any particular security, it can be confirmed that the M design was understood as having been provided with the goods equivalent to the supply price exceeding the above KRW 20 million, in light of the fact that the M design provided the goods equivalent to the supply price exceeding the above KRW 20 million. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the termination of the M design on May 26, 2014 on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of the obligation to provide security is not legitimate.

However, in the state that the MM design was not provided as security after the conclusion of the contract of this case, 198.