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

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. On or around the beginning of March 2017, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding specific terms and conditions of the contract that the Defendant made with the Defendant a gold-type, such as LED fish, etc. (hereinafter “the gold-type”) within two months and the Defendant made a verbal contract with the amount of KRW 22,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant contract”);

The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 6,00,000 to the Defendant in advance, KRW 5,00,000 on March 13, 2017, KRW 11,000 on April 18, 2017, and KRW 11,00,000 on the aggregate, may be recognized in full view of each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and subparagraphs 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the content of the instant contract is a contract that includes the Defendant’s production and supply of normal commodities to the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserts that the instant contract is the content of the production of the gold paper and that it is not the content of the instant contract to produce and supply the gold paper.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned earlier, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed only on the size, shape, and form of the instant LED house, etc. after the instant contract, and did not determine the volume, unit price, etc. of the house to be supplied by the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s item column in the tax invoice also states “LED case advance payment,” and the Plaintiff’s written statement dated April 16, 2019 asserts that “The instant contract is completed by the Defendant’s delivery of 2,00 copies after the Defendant’s production of the gold paper to the Plaintiff, and the implementation of the instant contract is completed by obtaining approval from the Plaintiff.”