1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as stated in Paragraph 2 below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part IX through 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows:

“(1) Determination as to the assertion that there is no cause attributable to the Defendant Company (the summary of the Defendant Company’s assertion is that the Defendant Company failed to deliver it to the Plaintiff Company pursuant to the instant contract for the following reasons, and there is no cause attributable to the Defendant Company. Therefore, the Plaintiff Company cannot rescind the instant contract.

① There were many defects in other products produced by the Plaintiff Company through another company. The Defendant Company’s failure to properly supply the products to the Plaintiff is the issue of design drawings provided by the Plaintiff Company, not the fault of the Defendant Company, but the fault of the Defendant Company.

② The Defendant Company produced the instant product by making utmost efforts to the maximum extent possible, and supplied the instant product to the Plaintiff Company.

However, the Plaintiff Company repeated the demand that it is difficult to obtain an additional demand by demanding any matters that do not exist in the design drawing, without presenting the clear manufacturing standards for the instant product, and then requested the Defendant Company to make unreasonable correction in order not to pay the down payment as the Japanese export of the instant product was obstructed.

③ The Defendant Company purchased more than 10 materials of the instant product in the process of re-produced the instant product by reflecting the repeated revision requirements of the Plaintiff Company, and accordingly, demanded the Plaintiff Company to pay intermediate payments first because of the serious financial difficulties, and even though the production cost increased due to the unreasonable demand of the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff Company only refused to pay intermediate payments.