1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this court’s admitting the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable as it is by the main sentence of

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Ground of the judgment of the court of first instance

B. Part 1 of the Claim for Set-off of Negligence 1) The Defendant only delivers the labels at the Plaintiff’s request to the Plaintiff by mechanical and repeated printing, and prepared a “product inspection report” attached to a sample that the supplied Plaintiff checked the labels as a whole, and checked whether the labels were properly printed, and sent them to F. F is also engaged in the work of attaching labels on the products after re-tally examining whether the labels supplied by the Plaintiff were properly printed and foundations. In the process, if the labelling was found to have discovered the error, the damages therefrom would have been limited to KRW 5,230,820, which is the cost of re-printing, but because the Plaintiff and F did not properly examine, the damages would have been increased to Japan by 671,34,30 won, which was attached to the goods and exported to Japan, and the damages would have to be limited to the Plaintiff’s damages and the Defendant’s total damages. Therefore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s negligence should be limited to 25%.

2. The comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act is intended to take into account the obligee’s interest in calculating the amount of damages in accordance with the principle of equity in a case where the obligee fails to fulfill his/her duty required under the principle of good faith. Therefore, even if the obligee’s interest was incurred or expanded due to such failure, it can be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the obligee.