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. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the court of first instance under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in the trial room

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that, even though it is not acknowledged that the Plaintiff had entered into a continuous supply contract with the Plaintiff processing the rhetoric freezing store to the Defendant, the Plaintiff processed and imported the minimum quantity of containers as required by the Defendant, which is a minimum import unit, for freezing the minimum quantity of containers. As above, the amount imported as a minimum import unit should be deemed to have been supplied by the Defendant.

However, from December 2, 2014 to January 21, 2015, the Defendant was supplied with only 400 boxes, and subsequently unilaterally suspended the order of the product. Since the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the market price of the freezing store kept in custody due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligations, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 210 million as part of the above damages to the Defendant.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant: (a) purchased 400 freezings processed on three occasions from December 2, 2014 to January 31, 2015 from the Plaintiff and paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 52 million as the price for the goods; (b) however, it is difficult to deem that the fact of the recognition alone did not constitute an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to be provided with the same amount as the amount imported as a minimum import unit; and (c) it is insufficient to acknowledge only by the respective entries in the evidence No. 1-9 and No. 3, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.