1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part regarding the counterclaim, including the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim claim expanded in the trial.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the "five percent per annum prescribed in the Civil Act" in Part 6, No. 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied to "six percent per annum"; and (b) the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has the remaining machinery except the machinery listed in the separate sheet No. 2, among the machinery of this case, as stated in the separate sheet No. 15 through 18 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the following judgments shall be added to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, so it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant transferred the machinery of this case to the plaintiff under the condition that he is supplied with sprinking samples from the plaintiff without compensation. If the plaintiff return the machinery of this case to the defendant, the defendant is obliged to pay 3,104 manufacturing cost of 3,104 manufacturing cost of sprinking samples supplied by the plaintiff from January 2009 to May 19, 2014.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied 3,104 of the sampling samples to the Defendant, and that the average supply price of the sampling samples was 15,000 won, or that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to receive the payment of the price for the sampling sampling in the event that the machinery of this case that the Plaintiff acquired between the Plaintiff and the Defendant were returned to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. According to the above facts finding as to the counterclaim claim extended at the trial, the Plaintiff was a loss equivalent to the Defendant’s lost profit due to the delay in the duty to return the instant machinery, and as the Plaintiff sought payment from April 2016 to July 2017, the amount of KRW 14,400,000 for 16 months, as the Defendant sought payment (i.e., KRW 90,000 per month x 16 months) and the head of the instant incidental unit.