1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the modification of claims by this court, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of goods to be located in the E Bedcet related to the E Bedcet and the claim for defective costs and additional distribution expenses (a claim for agreed money), and ② a claim for damages related to the Bedcet related to the Bedcet.

The first instance court partially accepted the claim for the price of goods related to the Ecedrypt and dismissed all the other claims.

In this regard, the plaintiff appealed against the E Bedcet related part of the judgment of the first instance [the dismissed part of the claim for the price of goods, the defective cost of goods, and the claim for additional distribution expenses (the agreed amount)]. The court added the conjunctive claim to claim for damages due to an illegal act, which is the main claim for the defective cost of goods and the claim for additional distribution expenses.

Therefore, the subject of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the Plaintiff’s appeal and the ancillary claim as above.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of manufacturing and manufacturing bedclothess, wholesale, retail, etc., and the Defendant is a personal company operator who vicariously purchases and sells goods in home shopping, etc. under the trade name of “C”.

B. At around 2016 and 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with enex line, E, and difficult to get off, E, E, and E, f, E, and E, f, soft.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition

3. The plaintiff's assertion

A. (1) From June 2016 to April 2017, the Plaintiff is obligated to supply the Defendant with the aggregate of KRW 1,321,81,293 of the ebclopt 4 Eclopt 4 sold through D through D, and receive KRW 1,276,672,221 from the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the eclopt 45,209,072 (=1,321,81,293 - KRW 1,276,672,221).

B. The Defendant, who claimed the defective cost of goods and the additional cost of goods distribution, abused the superior contractual position of the ordering authority in the transactional relationship with the Plaintiff, thereby constituting the original production.