1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Co., Ltd.: (a) 72,864,320 won against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 24, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff is a company that is engaged in the manufacture and sale of functional shoes (name of product: D) and is the actual operator of Nonparty E. (2) Defendant 1 is a company that is supplied with functional shoes from the Plaintiff and sells them during the market. Defendant 2 is an internal director and actual operator of Defendant 1.

B. On July 2, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to supply the Plaintiff’s functional belief to F” (hereinafter “instant agreement”) between “F” and “F” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The instant agreement was concluded in the name of Nonparty E, not in the name of the Plaintiff, but in the name of Nonparty E. However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the actual party to the instant agreement is the Plaintiff. 2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant agreement, “F” was an individual company, not a corporation, and the actual operator was Defendant 2.

(B) The Defendant 2, after the date of the conclusion of the instant agreement, is the Plaintiff’s business owner’s name under the F’s business registration certificate (hereinafter “F”) and the Defendant 2, as the date of the establishment of Defendant 1, is the same in fact as the instant agreement (hereinafter “instant second agreement”).

) A signature and seal was signed and sealed (However, there is no signature and seal of the Plaintiff or Nonparty E in the second agreement of this case.

(4) Defendant 1 was established on October 29, 2010.

5) After Defendant 1 was established, the parties concerned implicitly consented to Defendant 1’s succession to the rights and obligations of “F” under the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff supplied functional new products to Defendant 1 from the establishment of Defendant 1 to September 2012 (the Plaintiff supplied goods to Defendant 1 by means of credit transaction, on the other hand, until January 5, 2012, but did not thereafter trade on credit.

6) The supply value of the new product supplied by the Plaintiff to Defendant 1, including value-added tax, is KRW 80,800 per turn on an emergency warning day.