1. The total amount of KRW 110,014,798, which was issued by Company A to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on December 31, 2012.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The facts below the underlying facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 17 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and witness C's testimony.

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) is a company mainly aiming at the development, sale, and distribution of mobile royalty, and the Defendant (the trade name before the change is a non-ASEAN corporation, and the trade name was changed on November 1, 2013) is a legal entity that purchases mobile royalty from the Plaintiff and sells it to the consumers.

The Plaintiff was merged on December 15, 2015, and comprehensively succeeded to A’s rights and obligations.

B. D (D, hereinafter referred to as “D”) is a system that certifies that small and medium enterprises have passed the reliability test established by E mobile phone design and quality of E mobile phone values developed by them.

A has sales right to purchase and sell maliciousia related to E's mobile phone exclusively as the only D company from around 2012 in Korea.

G, the representative director of the plaintiff and the actual manager of A, is the son of the president of E Company H.

A has been producing smartphone exclusive cases in the middle of 2012 by monopolying them.

A during this process, sales of KRW 2 billion in 2007, KRW 12.1 billion in sales in 2008, KRW 13.3 billion in sales in 2009, KRW 23.6 billion in sales in 2010, KRW 40 billion in sales in 2011, and KRW 90 billion in sales in 2012.

The Plaintiff asserted that companies J, K, L, etc. were certified as D after the mid-2012. However, in full view of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the aforementioned companies were certified as D by December 31, 2012, when the instant tax invoice was issued, was affected in the domestic market by the Plaintiff’s assertion.