Of the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the counterclaim of the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant) shall be revoked, and the revocation part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court is as follows, with the exception of the following dismissal or addition (main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 3rd 7 parallels “contract for the supply of goods” (hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”) is added to the following.

Under the 3th day, the 4th parallel conducts "C Law Firm" was "C Law Firm," and the notary public concluded a monetary consumption lending contract with respect to the amount of unpaid goods (hereinafter "the monetary consumption lending contract of this case"), and upon the commission of the plaintiff and the defendant, the notary public is "C Law Firm on the same day."

The plaintiff's 6th 9-10 behavior " is against the plaintiff's failure to pay the user fee set forth in the letter of non-performance of the plaintiff on October 28, 2013."

7 The 7th parallel 6th parallel to 9th parallel 5th parallel are as follows:

“1) The Plaintiff received goods from the Defendant in accordance with the instant goods supply contract from July 201 to December 2011. The Defendant, unlike stipulated in the instant goods supply contract, filed a claim against the Plaintiff for excessive payment by applying a false unit price and exchange rate for goods or by calculating customs clearance costs and value added taxes, etc. Accordingly, the unpaid amount exceeded KRW 450 million around January 30, 201, but the unpaid amount was considerably short of the unpaid amount.

On January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff believed the Defendant’s end on January 30, 2012, and mispercing that the unpaid amount reaches KRW 450,000,000,000, a notary public entrusted a law firm to prepare a fair certificate of this case, and did not actually intend to enter into a monetary consumption lending and lending contract with the Defendant. Thus, the instant monetary consumption lending and lending contract constitutes a common false indication and thus null and void.

In the instant case, the Guides.