1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed;

2...

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning the facts and the parties’ assertion are as stated in Articles 1 and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited by the main text of Article 420 of

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as that of Paragraph 3 of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

3. Determination as to the defendant's counterclaim and counterclaim

A. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this part is 4-A of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. (1) The delivery date stipulated in the instant manufacturing consignment agreement is August 31, 2011. The Plaintiff supplied all the goods stipulated in the instant manufacturing consignment agreement to the Defendant on October 21, 2011.

(2) Article 8 of the instant manufacturing consignment agreement provides, “If the Plaintiff fails to complete the delivery within the period of completion stipulated in the contract without justifiable grounds, the Plaintiff shall pay compensation for delay equivalent to 3/1,000 each day from the date of the agreement to pay the price after deducting the amount of delay compensation equivalent to 3/1,000.” The date of the agreement to pay the price stipulated in the instant manufacturing consignment agreement is “after examining the place of origin and shipping

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings (Article 8 of the manufacture consignment agreement of this case). If Article 8 of the manufacture consignment agreement of this case is interpreted to have paid the penalty for delay calculated by deducting the penalty for delay arising each day from the "date of the contract for payment of price" when the plaintiff did not complete the delivery without justifiable grounds within the completion period, the initial date of the penalty for delay shall be "tally and after the shipment" and the defendant shall at all times claim against the plaintiff regardless of the date of delivery by the plaintiff.