1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is charged with KRW 14,586,400.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacturing business of lighting fixtures, the development and manufacturing business of ESD canr, and the Defendant is a person who operates a mutual lighting fixture retail store, “C”.

B. Between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant the parts of the LED name “LED lighting equipment” (hereinafter the above parts of the LED name equipment “LED lighting equipment”) and the finished product combined with them “LED lighting equipment”).

C. By February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff recovered the ESD lighting fixtures that the Defendant requested for return, and deducted the amount equivalent to the purchase price from the attempted purchase price.

As of February 18, 2016, an attempted purchase amount of KRW 18,456,40 remain. D.

On the other hand, the composition of one LED lighting instrument consisting of one and one or several ESD servers. In the case of the LED lighting instrument sold by the Plaintiff, or using the 60W stability instrument, the combination of one and one one for each product, and in the case of the LED lighting instrument using the 50W stability instrument, the combination of one for each product and two for each product.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the principal claim is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining purchase price of KRW 18,456,400 and the delay damages for the remainder after the transaction with the LED lighting fixtures.

B. 1) The Defendant provided A/S on behalf of the Plaintiff with respect to defects arising from 418 LED lighting equipment installed using the LED lighting equipment purchased from the Plaintiff during the period from January 2, 2015 to January 12, 2016.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s total sum of A/S costs incurred during the same period to the Defendant (=418 x 50,000 x 50,000 (one time)) and its total amount.