1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

The court's explanation of this case by this court as to this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for addition to the corresponding part of the judgment under paragraph (2), since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition to the corresponding part of the judgment as to this case.

The "amount of money" in attached Table 1 of the fourth letter box of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "amount paid".

After the second sentence of the fourth sentence of the judgment of the first instance, "and the defendant sent a total of 120 points to the plaintiff around that time."

It shall add “18 minutes shall be taken in the front of “14 minutes” in the 5th sentence of the first instance judgment.

"B No. 13" shall be added to the 5th sentence of the first instance court (based on recognition).

The 6th written judgment of the first instance court is raising “one Star” in the 11th written judgment as “one Star”.

The "(B) No. 21 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court" shall be raised as "(B)".

The 6th judgment of the first instance court is the "this case's judgment" in the 11th judgment.

With respect to the assertion that the main performance of the instant contract is the notification of the production support caption, the Plaintiff asserts that the principal obligation of the instant contract is the notification of the production support caption (fluorine exposure), and that the Defendant’s termination of the instant contract on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform its incidental obligation is unlawful, merely because the Plaintiff’s main obligation is an incidental obligation to determine whether the manufacturer naturally exposed on the line that does not interfere with the flow of the drama.

The following circumstances, namely, the △△ Defendant, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16 of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3, 4, 6, and 1, 2, 4, 5, and 16 of the evidence No. 1, 5,