1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 24,456,460 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from February 2, 2016 to November 3, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and installing steel structures, and the defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing metal products and metal structures for structural purposes.

[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, and a summary of the parties’ assertion as to the claim of the principal lawsuit as to the purport of the entire pleadings, as the plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to the total of KRW 56,938,475 to the defendant, the defendant is liable to pay the above

Defendant 1’s 1.6T-EGT business unit that the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant on September 30, 2015 is m.

EGI(Seoul Doll Sheets) is often called a "refluor" product with a high corrosion-resistantness by prohibiting smoke from fluoring on the cooling steel.

Since the set is not ordered by the defendant, the defendant is not obligated to pay the set.

② As above, the Plaintiff suffered damages worth KRW 33,280,400 in total by mistakenly supplying goods that the Defendant did not order.

This set off the defendant's claim for damages and the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods to the extent of equal amount.

(1) The fact that the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to the sum of KRW 41,096,660 in accordance with the Defendant’s order from October 31, 2015 to December 21, 2015 (excluding the goods of September 30, 2015) is either a dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to the sum of KRW 41,096,660 in accordance with the Defendant’s order, such as the following table (excluding the goods of September 30, 2015), may be acknowledged by taking into account the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1-2

② Whether the Plaintiff is liable to pay the price to the Defendant with respect to 1.6T-EGI sets supplied on September 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sets”), the Plaintiff and the Defendant received written estimates in consultation with respect to the supply of the EGI sets on July 2015, and the Plaintiff supplied the instant sets to the Defendant on September 30, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the instant sets for the construction of the Agymnasium to the Defendant on September 30, 2015, is either a dispute between the parties, or as set forth in A evidence 1.