1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2...

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff was ordered to manufacture the original parts and supplied the original parts to the manufacturing company like the Defendant, and then supplied them to the clothing manufacturing company (in this case, C Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s customer”).

B. The Plaintiff entered into an original supply contract with the Defendant for the instant five cases (i.e., ①, ② E, F, ④ G, and ⑤ H) (hereinafter the order number is specified as “(i) contract”, “B”, etc. according to the order number.

① A contract was supplied by the Defendant on November 14, 2018, 2018 to n.e., the contract was concluded on January 4, 2019).

(c)

① Under a contract, the Plaintiff supplied the original unit supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s customer as it is, ② through an agreement, the original unit supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was processed through another company, and then was planned to supply it to the Plaintiff’s customer.

(d)

In relation to the original group supplied by the defendant, the defendant was not able to perform his/her obligations, and thereby the damage was inflicted on the plaintiff.

Specific details are as follows:

1) (1) In the case of an original group under a contract, the Plaintiff’s customers agreed to supply the original group which passed the external inspection at the external inspection place designated by the Plaintiff’s customer. The total inspection quantity of the original group’s external inspection place increased due to defective products occurred in the original group supplied by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff additionally disbursed “1,396,920 won for inspection of defective goods,” excluding successful goods.

2) ① In relation to the contract, the due date for payment was delayed due to the occurrence of defective goods (as of December 10, 2018) supplied by the Defendant. The Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff’s transaction by using the aircraft at the Plaintiff’s expense for the purpose of reducing liability for damages incurred to the Plaintiff’s transaction partner due to the delay in the payment due to the delay in the payment due date, and reducing the cost of cleaning (in ordinary cases, delivery by the Plaintiff’s transaction partner’s expense) and its “the amount of the instant air transport cost”.

3) (4) In relation to the contract, the Defendant entered into the contract.