1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing half-finished goods, etc. using the trade name of “B”, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures automobile parts.

B. Around June 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with an ECo Plast Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ECo Plast”), under which the Defendant produces and supplies a MaDF/L container (MDF/L) to ECo Plast. Around that time, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to manufacture and supply part of the above Mad Plast’s component (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. From July 2013 to October 2015, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied the parts indicated in the following table “name” column to the Defendant (hereinafter the individual parts are referred to as “the parts,” and the entire parts are referred to as “the instant parts”). The Plaintiff received KRW 1,576,516,846 from the Defendant as indicated in the “price” column.

No. 1 MD 1D 1 (won) price for 1 MCOMD 1 M 70/LHHD 20, 86, 20, 75, 758 713, 910, 930 2, 9653-3, 781, 768, 738, 768, 369, 446 3 MD 20, 86, 86, 76, 86, 76, 86, 86, 20, 76, 86, 64, 76, 76, 86, 204, 204, 204, 46, 76, 86, 76, 86, 86, 84, 86, 20, 204, 460, 204, 204, 368,364,

2. The portion of the primary claim; and

A. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the existence of the goods price obligation upon unit price adjustment (negative 1) was prepared by agreement with the Defendant on November 29, 2013, and the Plaintiff, once, set up the unit price of the instant parts.