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

2. The appeal costs.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Under the trade name of C, the Plaintiff is a person engaged in the re-distribution business, and the Defendant is a person engaged in the re-distribution business with the trade name of D.

(C) On November 9, 2012, the Plaintiff calculated and supplied 90,000 won per unit to the Defendant on November 9, 2012.

(C) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loss amount of KRW 18,000,000 (=200 x 90,000) and damages for delay, barring special circumstances.

3. Determination as to the Defendant’s counterclaim and the cause of counterclaim as to the principal lawsuit

A. On May 26, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with 330,000 square meters per one square, which calculated and supplied to the Plaintiff as KRW 330,000 per square, and on June 28, 2012, the former 28 square meters per square, calculated and supplied as KRW 330,000 per square.

Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to offset the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 35,640,00 (=108 can be claimed (=80 can be claimed) x 330,000 for the total amount of KRW 18,000 for the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the price of the goods, and the remainder of KRW 17,640,00 for the remainder after offsetting by a counterclaim (=35,640,000 - 18,000,000).

B. Determination 1) The fact that the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff 280,000 won per one square year with the previous 80 square meters on May 25, 2012, 2012, the Defendant’s claim for the purchase price of goods as of May 26, 2012 does not conflict between the parties.

Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant the amount of 22,400,000 won (=80 can be divided x 280,000 won) and damages for delay.

Although the Defendant asserts that the price per one square of the two preceding parts supplied to the Plaintiff was KRW 330,00,000, the Defendant’s assertion that the entry of the evidence No. 2 is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence, the part exceeding the above scope of recognition among the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

B. On June 28, 2012, the entry of No. 1 of the goods payment claim on June 28, 2012 in the evidence No. 1 alone provides the Plaintiff with the 28 square meters of the uniforms to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2012.