1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 8,560,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from July 15, 2014 to November 17, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a representative in business registration of mutual “C” with the main business of manufacturing steel structure, etc.

B. From May 11, 2014 to June 30, 2014, the Defendant, as an official volunteer, provided labor by being employed by the said C as an employee of the said C, who is in the position of the head of the Ban.

C. Around 2014, Non-Party Sco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd”) requested the Plaintiff (i.e. C) to manufacture D products (hereinafter “instant products”).

The Plaintiff manufactured the instant product and delivered it to the Nonparty Company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-4, witness E, and the purport of the whole argument

2. As to the main claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s major assertion (1) or Nonparty F, the father of the Plaintiff, did not have the ability to interpret the drawings for the manufacture of the instant product, etc., and the person who recommended the transaction with the Nonparty Company, employed the Defendant, who is an agent in charge and Mastling, and entirely delegated the Defendant the responsibility for the manufacture of the instant product to the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant caused a defect that makes it impossible to assemble the instant product due to a change in the left and right of the instant product or a mistake in the location of the hole due to the negligence, such as wrong direction of the cutting location, etc., by failing to interpret the drawing properly even though the Defendant was a responsible manager for the manufacturing of the instant product.

The defendant's above mistake constitutes a tort in relation to the plaintiff.

(3) The Plaintiff suffered losses, such as additional personnel expenses of KRW 49,037,140, additional personnel expenses of KRW 490,000, additional personnel expenses of KRW 400,000, and KRW 4 million for the purchase of additional salary bars for the repair of the above defects.

(4) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages totaling KRW 53,527,140 (i.e., KRW 49,037,140,000) and damages for delay.

B. (1) There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, and Gap evidence 3-1 to 4.