2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. From April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2014, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with alcoholic beverages with the trade name of B.

B. In addition, around May 2, 2011, the Defendant: (a) lent to the Plaintiff, without compensation, one shock rink, one coke, one carbon gas tank, one fluor, one Hd, one air conditioners, two cupped freezings, two tables, ten table 10, and 32 balls, which are necessary for the operation of the said main points; (b) at the time of the Plaintiff’s sale of alcoholic beverages other than the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to return the said equipment, etc., and (c) compensate the Plaintiff for the amount required for the said equipment when the equipment, etc. were lost or destroyed or the Plaintiff transferred or discontinued the said main points.

C. On the other hand, on August 24, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the amount of alcoholic beverages unpaid in Seoul Central District Court 2015Da389931, which is 2,359,900 won and the amount required for the equipment. On September 1, 2015, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the Defendant that “the Plaintiff of this case shall pay to the Defendant 2,359,900 won and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment,” and the said decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the instant decision on performance recommendation”) became final and conclusive on September 19, 2015 because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection within the prescribed period.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Eul Nos. 1 to 4 and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 1,903,60, which was recognized in the decision on performance recommendation of this case, is limited to the amount unilaterally claimed by the defendant, and that the plaintiff had not already existed in the case of the claim objection against the defendant, Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan283, which was filed by the plaintiff, and also the defendant lent free of charge.