1. Of the part on the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, 106,876,000 won against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance (from 3 up to 8 pages 3 to 5 of the judgment of the court of the first instance). As such, this part of the basic facts is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use] The Reasons for the Judgment of the first instance

B. 1) Paragraph 1 (5) (5) to 7 pages of the first instance judgment) is as follows. (1) The instant machinery was not operated normally from the time when it was installed at the seat of the Plaintiff’s head office to July 25, 2011, and the Defendant accepted the part where the problem was pointed out at the Plaintiff’s request. The detailed details are as follows.

(The next table does not mean the frequency of failure due to the details arranged by the Plaintiff for cases that the instant machine does not work normally; hereinafter the table below is referred to as the “instant breakdown and repair specifications”; from December 6, 2010 to January 10, 2011, the Defendant’s measures such as the details of the breakdown are taken, the entire part part of the RF Rader Rober Rober Rober Roster replacement cable, and the RF 2 Rodre 2 Round 1, 1, 2011, in the event that the number of the instant machines does not work normally; hereinafter the table is 2,000-1,000-2,000-1,0000-1,000-1,000-1,0000-1,0000-2,000-1,000-0,0000-0,000-0,000