1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows each description of evidence Nos. 15 through 17 submitted in this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal of the following 2.3 or addition of the judgment on new allegations by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance is subject to the obligation to pay the sum of KRW 86 million (including design cost) and the interest or delay damages for the profit (including KRW 36 million) that a person is unable to receive from the ordering person due to damages due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.”

In light of the fact that “the payment was made” in Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance, the term “as seen in the light of the fact that the payment was made,” and the term “the date of delivery” at the bottom of the quotation (Evidence 3 of the F) prepared by the F. However, in light of the fact that F is an additional entry at the Plaintiff’s request around November 2014, it is difficult to view that it was “the date of delivery.”

B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the addition of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant did not complete the manufacture of goods under the instant contract until at least two months passed from September 5, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was notified by C of the rescission of the said contract.

Even if the Plaintiff’s notification of performance of the Plaintiff’s content certification on November 19, 2014, the Defendant did not perform its duty under the instant contract with a considerable period of time.

This can be seen as having expressed the intent of the Defendant not to perform the obligation, so the Plaintiff may rescind the instant contract without providing performance.

The plaintiff is the defendant.