2. Of the counterclaims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Plaintiff for Review), the Defendant was added to the first instance trial after remanding.

A. 1) The plaintiff is a person running the steel network and machine manufacturing business with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a company producing steel network and building materials. 2) The defendant is a multi-mon-type steel network manufacturing machine, which is a multi-mond type manufacturing machine used for the creativity of a building or the protection network of a structure, etc., and the defendant used the machinery (name: eXXND METM/C, 200L: 6T x 200 tons, weight: 21 ton; hereinafter "the machinery of this case"), and among which the machinery of this case was used, the repair part was left to the plaintiff on June 1, 2005. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18748, Jun. 1, 2005>

3) Around June 17, 2005, the Plaintiff completed repair of the instant parts. The Defendant’s employees confirmed the completion of repair and paid 22 million won to the Plaintiff on or around June 18, 2005, and attempted to remove the instant parts as repair expenses. However, the Plaintiff refused to deliver the instant parts on or around June 18, 2005. (4) Accordingly, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a disposition of mechanical delivery for the instant parts (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Kahap1855), and on September 14, 2005, completed delivery execution on or around September 14, 2005, and acquired the instant parts and resumed their production networks by assembling them into the main body of the instant machinery.

B. On July 8, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 15 million out of the repair cost of the instant parts (Seoul Southern District Court 2005Gahap10945), asserting that the repair cost of the instant parts is KRW 22 million in the process of the said lawsuit, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking damages, such as lost income, due to the Plaintiff’s refusal of delivery of the instant parts (the court of first instance on November 3, 2006 dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 3, 2006 and asserted that the repair cost of the instant parts is KRW 22 million (the court of Seoul Southern District Court 2005Gahap20409).