2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 21, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to provide the lecture automatically RT system (hereinafter “instant goods”) with KRW 142 million (excluding value-added tax) for up to April 25, 201. Of the said payments, KRW 42.6 million was paid at the time of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 56.8 million was paid at the time of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 42.6 million was paid after the completion of the examination (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for down payment of KRW 46860,00 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant, and received KRW 4686,00 from the Defendant following the following day.

C. The Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to the Defendant by July 201.

On July 27, 2011, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for total of KRW 19,340,000 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant for the said year.

8. 11. The Defendant received an intermediate payment of KRW 56.8 million.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 4 through 7, 9, Eul evidence 1-5, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to the Defendant around July 201, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder of KRW 5,254,000 to the Plaintiff and damages for delay calculated from August 12, 2011.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for the payment of goods has expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, as well as significant damages caused by failure to use the goods due to defects in the goods of this case.

B. (i) The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the remainder of the payment period for the instant goods as “after the inspection is completed” is recognized as above.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned facts and the evidence, the Plaintiff and the Defendant examine the instant goods from July 27, 201 or from August 11, 201.