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

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows: (a) the part concerning the defendant company among the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the part concerning the appeal as set forth in paragraph (2) below; and (b) such part is cited in accordance

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) at the time of the first instance judgment No. 5, No. 16, “the following,” due to the act of goods transaction between the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff Company;

(b) The first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment “I are in fact, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant Company alone is insufficient to dismiss it.”

(c) Decision 2-B of the first instance court.

(1) The following sentences shall be added to the last sentence of paragraph (1):

"The defendant company asserts that the contract for the transfer of the price claim for the supply of goods to the defendant company of G, which was concluded between the plaintiff company and the non-representative director of G, is null and void. Thus, since the time when G was established, H does not have any dispute between the parties, the fact that the representative director is the representative director in the corporate register of G does not exist between the parties. The following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole on the evidence and witness testimony of the court of first instance after the F and H were established, i.e., F from May 2009 after the establishment of G, F was in charge of the wind and spath, H was practically independent of its operation, ii) was not involved in the production, sale and price collection related to G's P's P's P's P's P's P's P' and its operation. ③ The F was for the purpose of succeeding the plaintiff company's obligation and its succession to the claim of G et al.