1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of insurance proceeds as the principal lawsuit, and the Defendant filed a claim for the prohibition of reimbursement as a counterclaim. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal lawsuit and accepted the Defendant’s claim for the counterclaim.

Since the plaintiff appealed only against the counterclaim among the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the defendant's counterclaim claim.

2. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for those written by the court as follows. Thus, this part of the basic facts is cited in the summary, notes, and the attached papers, as are, by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Part 4 of the 11st page "$ 18,00,000 (including the balance of guarantee in the old guarantee certificate issued on April 3, 2013)" was added to "$ 18,000,000 (including the balance of guarantee in the old guarantee certificate issued on April 3, 2013; hereinafter referred to as "$ 18,000")".

3. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the counterclaim is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the plaintiff's defense of violating the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Judgment]

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant took measures to terminate the limitation of this case unlawfully, and the occurrence of a guarantee accident for which the export price is not paid from the Spans. The Plaintiff suffered enormous damages, such as losses equivalent to the export price of the goods refused to accept and loss of sales opportunities, due to the termination of the illegal limit of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for the payment of indemnity cannot be permitted against the principle of trust and good faith.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the measure to terminate the instant limit was unlawful, and there is no evidence or basis to deem that the Defendant’s claim for prohibition of reimbursement contravenes the principle of trust and good faith.