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

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be 10% out of the total costs of the principal lawsuit and counterclaims.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff, as the principal lawsuit, filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment with the showers and the original claim for the return of unjust enrichment with the main lawsuit. The Defendant filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment with the counterclaim, the part of the main claim was partly accepted, the remainder of the main claim was dismissed, and all the Defendant’s counterclaims were dismissed.

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed the part against the defendant, and the court prior to the remanded the appeal against the claim for the payment of the original claim in the Shsawf, which partly accepted the appeal and dismissed the remaining appeal.

As to this, both parties' appeals were dismissed, the part against the plaintiff as to the shower price and its delay damages in the judgment of the Supreme Court before remanding from the Supreme Court was reversed, and the defendant's appeal was dismissed.

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim was separated and finalized by the above Supreme Court's judgment, and the court's judgment should be judged in whole with the original claim amount reversed by the Supreme Court.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as stated in paragraph (1).

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. The court's explanation on this part of the parties to the contract is the same as the statement in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that in Article 20(a).

B. As seen in the above basic facts, the Defendant Company ordered the Plaintiff to use the Warsaw that was 27,880 P.S. and Q. 4,941 P.S., and the Plaintiff supplied the Warsaw that was 27,235 P.S. and 5,238 P.C. by April 20, 201. As such, the Defendant Company supplied to the extent that it ordered the order, it had already been paid from the price for the Warsaw that was 27,235 P.S. and the M. 4,941 P.S. (including value-added tax) supplied by the Plaintiff.