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 reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written or added. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The first instance court's findings and judgments are justifiable in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal). The first instance court's grounds for appeal No. 1-C (2nd inside the third page) "A" was added to "A".

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows, from the 9th to the last reduction below (from the 9th to the last reduction below the third list) on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance:

Article 17. Special Agreement - Provision of Sales Authority for Payment of Claims and Cancellation of Sales Authority, etc., and any modification or addition by agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and includes this Agreement.

1. The volume of the first order 5,348 and the volume of the second order 3,152 Doz. 8,500 are replaced by the quantity owned by the non-party company (asset-backed asset security). For this purpose, from the time when the non-party company (the plaintiff) pays the first price to the non-party company, Eul (the defendant) will provide the plaintiff (the plaintiff) with the exclusive authority to supply and sell the goods (products).

2. B (Defendant) at the same time, the non-party company’s repayment of its claims to the non-party company’s securitization assets (hereinafter “instant cleaning instruments”) and supplies the non-party company’s products to Gap (Plaintiff) for securitization assets (hereinafter “instant cleaning instruments”).

3. The Defendant (the Defendant) cancelled the sales authority of the non-party company on the securitization assets (the instant cleaning machine) and, at the same time, provides the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff) with the exclusive authority for domestic sales and distribution of the securitization assets (the instant cleaning machine).

4. Eul (Defendant) shall be the place determined by Gap (Plaintiff) at the same time as the deposit of the first goods (500,000,000) by 5,348 cleaning machines of this case.