1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 454,998,036 and its KRW 349,998,036 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) on November 27, 2014.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on September 27, 2013 for the purpose of manufacturing metal cans and other packing and containers, and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling automation machinery.

B. On June 14, 2013, B: “18L Doddy Line (a facility that produces each type of cans; hereinafter “facilities of this case”) and “18L Dody L” (a facility that produces an original cans; hereinafter “facilities of this case”) with production capacity of 25/10; and “25/Dody L” (a facility that produces an original cans; hereinafter “facilities of this case”).

(1) The contract amount of KRW 1.155 million (the supply value of KRW 1.55 billion, value-added tax of KRW 1.5 billion), and the contract to be supplied on October 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the payment period fixed on the basis of KRW 1.155 million (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

(2) The Defendant received from B a total of KRW 1,00,000,000,000,000 won for each of the instant facilities costs, which was KRW 31,5,000,000,000,000 won on October 2, 2013, and KRW 42,000,000,000,000 won on November 29, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Defendant had a duty to install each of the instant facilities in the Plaintiff’s factory by October 30, 2013 under the instant supply contract, the Defendant had a duty to install the instant facilities in the Plaintiff’s factory. As such, on February 30, 2014, the Defendant had a duty to pay 1.5 million won to the Plaintiff as liquidated damages, as stipulated in the instant supply contract. (2) The Defendant asserted damages for defects in the functions of each of the instant facilities. (3) Although the Defendant had a duty to install the instant facilities with the production capacity of 45/1, and the instant facilities with the production capacity of 25/1, the first facilities of this case were installed, the first facilities of this case are 25.