1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 28,700,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from March 4, 2014 to February 18, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with a beneficiary corporation (hereinafter “beneficiary”) and sold the construction machinery of the U.S. company.

B. On February 11, 2011, the Plaintiff sold and handed over the purchase price of KRW 49,500,000 to the Defendant for groski and 236B6/AW (CAT0236B9H0382) (hereinafter “instant primary equipment”). The Defendant paid KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. Upon the Defendant’s assertion of the defects in the instant primary equipment, the Plaintiff terminated the sales contract with the Defendant for the instant primary equipment, and received delivery of the instant primary equipment from the Defendant on February 18, 201.

On the other hand, on February 17, 2011, the Defendant transferred to the beneficiary KRW 236B6/AW (CAT0236BP9H0572) one unit (hereinafter “the second unit equipment of this case”) 72 persons attached to the 72 unit (hereinafter “instant equipment”). The Plaintiff, as the purchase price for the second unit equipment of this case, transferred KRW 25 million to the beneficiary as the purchase price for the second unit equipment of this case, KRW 24.5 million on February 15, 201, KRW 25 million on the following day, KRW 4.5 million on the following day, and KRW 25 million on the following day, was paid by the Plaintiff as the purchase price for the first unit equipment of this case from the Defendant.

On February 18, 2011, the beneficiary issued a tax invoice stating the supplier’s “beneficiary,” “Defendant,” “Defendant,” “49.5 million won of supply.”

E. On the other hand, on February 15, 201, the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant one blicket and one blicket for cleaning, which can be attached to the instant secondary equipment, without agreement on the trading price on February 15, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 4, fact-finding inquiry results against the beneficiary, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim for unjust enrichment 1, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to the beneficiary in lieu of KRW 24.5 million.