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

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as follows: (a) part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows; and (b) the reasoning of 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 addition of “paragraph (3)” and “the addition” under the judgment of the defendant, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Article 16-17 of the court of first instance provides that “The testimony of a witness C against it is difficult to believe that the testimony of a witness C contains any content contrary to objective facts, and there is no other counter-proof.” The testimony of the witness C of the court of first instance against it is difficult to believe it as it is in light of the various circumstances examined below, and even if considering all the evidence submitted by the defendant, such as the testimony of the witness E of the court of first instance, up to the trial, and the circumstances of the assertion, it is insufficient to reverse it, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.”

(b) the part of “B employee E, etc.” in Part 11 of the 6th judgment of the first instance court is “B employee E or G, etc.”.

C. On August 6, 2013, Part 17 of Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance (“3D”) states “(3) D, through the above e-mail, know on August 5, 2013 that the expected departure time in the Ulsan Port of the instant vessel would be “8 August 12, 2013.” On August 6, 2013, the Defendant’s employees G would end at the Ulsan Port at the end of August 12, 2013. In addition, D will take place on August 7, 2013.”

Part VII through VIII of the judgment of the first instance court shall be written in accordance with the following subparagraphs:

Secondly, the Defendant asserts that the delivery date of the instant vessel cannot be deemed to have been changed on the basis of the e-mail sent by D to Defendant on the ground that he did not perform his duties by e-mail regarding the instant charter contract. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s detailed information on the arrival of the wharf to D on August 6, 2013.