1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with KRW 36 million and this.

1. On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the manufacture and installation of machinery as indicated in the separate sheet (a price of KRW 120 million, value-added tax separate), and installed the machinery (hereinafter “instant machinery”) on December 16, 2015 to a stock company designated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant machinery”).

However, the Defendant paid 24 million won on June 22, 2015 and 72 million won on July 21, 2015, and did not pay 24 million won in total and 36 million won in value-added tax.

However, the defendant currently does not use the machinery of this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Comprehensively taking account of the fact of finding the judgment on the principal lawsuit, the Defendant has not yet paid 36 million won to the Plaintiff a total of the remainder and value-added tax. Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 36 million won (which appears to be a clerical error in the calculation) and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 6, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint.

3. The defendant asserts that since the contract was cancelled due to serious defects in the instant machinery, the plaintiff should return the amount of KRW 96 million already paid by the defendant as the restoration to its original state.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to deem that there is a defect to the extent that the purpose of the instant machine is not achieved, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the counterclaim claim cannot be accepted.