2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff manufactured and sold electronic parts and mechanical equipment under the trade name of “C” and “D,” and the Defendant was supplied with mechanical equipment, etc. by the Plaintiff while operating the mechanical equipment manufacturing business under the trade name of “E.”

B. On July 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant, and received a written estimate from the Defendant in e-mail, and then sent a written estimate to the Defendant, and filed an objection against the Defendant, the Plaintiff negotiated the price, and supplied the goods as they are, without raising any objection.

C. From January 2014 to July 2014, the Plaintiff sent a written estimate to the Defendant at the request of the Defendant, and then issued a tax invoice after supplying goods to the Defendant, and sent it to the Defendant by e-mail or facsimile along with the written statement of transactions. The value of supply stated in the tax invoice or written statement of transactions issued by the Plaintiff is as listed below:

The supply monthly supply value (the original supply value) .22,50,000 on January 22, 2014; 44,739, 200 on February 44, 2014; 14,085, 500 on March 14, 2014; 18,65,065, 870 on May 9, 2014; 15,949, 670 on July 11, 2014; 136,301,90 on the aggregate of 136,301,90 on May 15, 2014

D. On the other hand, on April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail seeking payment of KRW 81,374,700 (= KRW 22,50,000 KRW 44,739,200 KRW 14,085,50) from January 23, 2014 to March 2014. On the other hand, on April 28, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail demanding payment of KRW 81,374,70 (= KRW 22,50,00 KRW 44,739,200). On the other hand, on April 28, 2014, the Defendant does not comply with C’s transaction intention with C and E. However, it appears that the payment delayed due to the internal circumstances of E would make it possible to make a smooth settlement within the earlier time upon request for understanding.”

E. On April 30, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, but did not pay the remainder of the goods up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10, and Eul.