1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 20,583,010 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from December 19, 2013 to June 23, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2012, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied the clothing that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant with the original group, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”), and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the processing cost. However, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the content that the processing cost for the instant goods shall be 70% based on the 100% of the fixed goods processing cost, and the processing cost for the C goods shall be 30% (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff’s 2LFJP401 product (hereinafter “1 product”), 3,570 punishment, 2LFS Q402 product (hereinafter “2 product”) 695 punishment, W12WV42W product and hereinafter “3 products”).

(C) The Plaintiff made and supplied the 1,052 punishment to the Defendant. The 1,052 punishment for each product is KRW 15,200, KRW 10,000 for each product, KRW 10,000 for each product, and KRW 16,800 for each product. C. The Plaintiff rendered a judgment on the B product on the grounds of the defect in water control and quality shortage for each product, etc., and only KRW 50,000 for the delivery price agreed upon to the Defendant. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 45,00 for all costs of clinical processing for the instant product. [In the absence of dispute over recognition, subparagraphs 1 through 4, 1 through 6, 8, and 10 for each product, the testimony of the witness, and the purport of the entire pleadings, all of the arguments.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the plaintiff's principal claim, the defendant is obligated to pay 68,869,240 won (=3,570 won x 15,200 won x 70% x 10,000 won x 16,800 won x 10% x 10% x 16,800 won x 10% 10% x 10% 10% of the value-added tax of 16,800) calculated by deducting 45 million won already paid by the defendant, and damages for delay.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's error in water control in the product No. 1 is due to the wrong pattern provided by the defendant, and this is also due to this.