The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The basic facts of the claim (1) The plaintiff is a company aimed at wholesale and retail business of agricultural, fishery, and livestock products. The defendant is a company that aims at manufacturing, processing, and selling agricultural, fishery, and livestock products. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a product supply basic contract with the defendant on the supply of food materials, etc. for school meal (hereinafter "instant supply contract") around 201.

(2) By January 2018, the Plaintiff suspended its business after being supplied with food materials, etc. from the Defendant pursuant to the instant supply contract. The amount of the goods that the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant by the time is KRW 22,883,835.

(3) The plaintiff did not pay the above amount until now. (3) The above facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by the respective entries in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and there is no evidence that interfered with this.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) rejected the Plaintiff’s order for small amount of goods and supplied goods with large capacity but did not properly interfere with the disposal of goods. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was forced to deposit food materials equivalent to KRW 7,211,66 of the inventory products, the distribution period of which is imminent, with D Food Bank. Since this is a damage caused by the Defendant’s unfair trade, the above KRW 7,211,666 should be deducted from the unpaid amount of goods.

(2) A large enterprise, such as the Defendant, who supplies food materials for school meal services, operates a system that recognizes the return of food materials within the limit of 0.5% of the transaction amount in order to compensate for losses incurred when a stock occurs due to the massive supply of food materials and the short distribution period (the Plaintiff refers to the “authorization return system,” and the following is referred to as the “return system,” which constitutes a commercial practice. Accordingly, the Defendant constitutes a total purchase amount of 1,391,025,592 won under the instant supply contract, and the Defendant is 6,955.