A. Since December 2009, C, which had been the representative director of the defendant, transferred to the company (the plaintiff established on January 22, 2010) that was scheduled to establish the defendant's mobile energy business division between D and D that was withdrawn from the defendant around December 2, 2009, if the defendant invested in the above company in the manner of investing all of the oil and intangible assets of the above mobile energy business division in kind, the above company assessed the above assets in accordance with the certified appraisal report, and decided to allocate the above company's shares to the defendant at the price. At that time, the overall discussion was conducted from around 2010 to early 2010.

B. Around December 2009, the Defendant transferred materials, products, and equipment of the aforementioned mobile energy business department (hereinafter “instant facilities, etc.”) to D according to the aforementioned discussions, and the Plaintiff currently keeps the instant facilities, etc. in the Plaintiff’s warehouse.

C. On the other hand, on December 31, 2010, the Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 484,574,913 in total and KRW 48,457,491 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) to the Plaintiff as indicated in the following table.

On December 31, 2010, the total amount of supply (cost) of the items on the date of issuance (cost) for mobile materials and products sold 461,354,578,46,135,458 on December 31, 2010; 23,220,335 2,322,03, total sum of 484,574,9134,457,491, and total amount of 53,032,404 won;

D. The Plaintiff paid totaling KRW 63,457,486 to the Defendant from April 201 to July 22, 2014.

E. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 469,574,918, excluding the amount of KRW 63,457,486, which was already paid at KRW 533,032,404, the amount of KRW 63,457,486, and damages for delay thereof,” but the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on November 3, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “related case”). The defendant is against the judgment of the related case.