1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which the defendant asserts in the trial while filing an appeal, is not significantly different from the content claimed by the defendant in the court of first instance, and even if the plaintiff re-examines each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 7 through 13 (including each number), which the plaintiff submitted to the court of first instance, along with the allegations of the parties concerned, the judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted the plaintiff'

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the portion in the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 2 and No. 3" of No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed "No. 2, 3, 7 through 9, 12 and 13".

Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance states "inspection plan" in Part 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "inspection plan guide and inspection plan".

The following shall be added to the 9th judgment of the first instance following the 16th judgment:

The fact that the Plaintiff had concluded multiple supply contracts prior to the instant case does not interfere with such interpretation as above. The following is added between the first instance judgment of the first instance and the first instance judgment of the 16th class and the 17th class.

Meanwhile, the above inspection plan

4. Paragraph 1 of the same Article states "if an objection is raised to the items of the echemical test, it shall be the wind to ask questions to the inspection institution of this case until before the inspection date, and there is a fact that the plaintiff paid the inspection expenses and requested the inspection.

However, the subject of the above objection is not the defendant, but the plaintiff did not object to the inspection service provided by the inspection institution of this case and paid the price for such service. Thus, the criteria for judgment of this case are new contents of the contract of this case because the plaintiff did not raise any objection.