1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 29,565,080 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s claim on March 23, 2013.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates the automobile parts manufacturing business, etc., and the Defendant is a company that produces and supplies mobile phone operators to the KONEX, which is a partner company of the Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd.

B. Around August 2010, the Defendant received a request from KON to supply KON, and entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff on September 2010, with the exception of the amount to be directly produced by the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”). C.

The unit price of the mobile phone exhauster to be supplied by the Defendant to KON was not determined at the time of receipt, and accordingly, the Plaintiff did not have determined the unit price of the goods to be supplied to the Defendant.

In the future, the Defendant and the KON agreed that the unit price of the model GT S8530 (hereinafter referred to as “instant model 1”) shall be KRW 900 and the unit price of the model GT I8700 (hereinafter referred to as “instant model 2”) shall be KRW 1,200, and the unit price of each model shall be reduced to KRW 766.8 and KRW 1,104 from January 1, 201.

The Plaintiff was a company that mainly produced automobile parts. However, according to the instant subcontract agreement, the Plaintiff newly installed a soft pumps (MVP-324) and a processing tools belt to produce mobile phone operators.

E. The Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the 46,800 raw materials (unit price of supply of materials) of the instant model 1; the 8,996 raw materials (unit price of 590 won) of the instant model 2; and the bridges (unit price of 590 won) of each model (unit price of 590 won); and 2,297,600 raw materials (consumable goods) of the instant model.

F. From October 22, 2010 to December 2, 2010, the Plaintiff supplied the instant 1 model 41,844 and the instant 2 model 7,828 to the Defendant. Among them, the instant 1 model was 1,101 (1,089 of the shipment quantity due to defective 12 defects in the transaction statement) and the defective quantity due to the instant 2 model’s transaction statement was 8 inferior quantity.