1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 513,282,183 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 6, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

The plaintiff is a company that supplies basic parts of a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle completion business entity, such as Korea AM, and the defendant is a company that is entrusted with the manufacture of the basic parts by the same business entity as the plaintiff and delivers them.

On June 2012, the Plaintiff leased gold-type necessary for the production of basic parts from Korea-M, and then requested the manufacturing of basic parts to the Culture Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Y”) for the said gold-type free of office.

On March 2, 2013, the Defendant notified that he/she will succeed to all claims and obligations related to the tugboat industry, and on April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a basic transaction agreement with the Defendant to produce and supply the basic parts at the Plaintiff’s request (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and a type of gold contract with the Defendant to pay for the production of the basic parts.

When the Plaintiff supplies raw materials to the Defendant, the Defendant supplies the basic parts by using the gold type leased free of charge. Since the Plaintiff can earn profits by selling scrap (Scrap) generated in the process of manufacturing the parts, the Plaintiff calculated the material cost by deducting the selling value of scrap from the raw material value.

Therefore, the original and the Defendant settled the price by offsetting the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff, computed by aggregating labor cost, manufacturing cost, general management cost, profit, material management cost, and transportation cost after deducting the value of scrap from the price of the raw materials and the price of the raw materials, and then the Defendant bears the obligation to pay the Defendant the entire cost of the raw materials related thereto, although the Plaintiff did not pay the cost of the parts to the Defendant if the defective part produced by the Defendant was not supplied.

As a result of the price settlement as above, the Plaintiff’s Defendant at the time of December 30, 2015.