1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 8,447,505 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from October 21, 2016 to November 22, 2017.

The main lawsuit, counterclaim is also considered.

Ⅰ. The following facts are recognized to the effect that there is no dispute or the entire pleadings, other than each macro- documentary evidence:

On October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted a livestock product processing contract with the Defendant as described below.

[B] The Defendant 1 and “A” refer to the Plaintiff, and “B” refers to the Plaintiff; hereinafter the same refers to the instant contract). According to the terms of the instant contract, if the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supply the livestock products for school meal service by providing a supply and demand table necessary for school meal service at least three days prior to the supply of the relevant school, the Plaintiff shall produce and supply the livestock products to the school. The goods in the Yangsansan District shall be delivered to the Defendant, and the goods in the other area shall be delivered to the Plaintiff, and if the supply price is paid to the Defendant from the relevant school, the Defendant shall pay the remainder after the reduction of 10% thereof to the Plaintiff on the 10th of the following month, and the expenses incurred by the Defendant to the contracted portion, such as delivery (TB), contract, and payment of the letter of guarantee, etc., shall be included in full within 10% of the fee.

In addition, Article 5 (4) of the contract stipulates that delivery fees shall be paid at 5% of the total sales amount when the plaintiff requests the defendant to pay the contract part of the Gyeyang-gu.

According to the instant contract, from December 2013 to August 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied meat (sat and pigs) livestock products to the schools awarded a successful bid by the Defendant.

[A 4 and B 2] From February 2015, the Defendant began to delay payment of part of the price of the goods to the Plaintiff from February 2, 2015. Around February 2016, the Defendant was placed in the situation where half of the price of the goods to be received in the previous month cannot be paid, and a considerable portion of the price of the goods to be received in the previous month was not paid thereafter.

[A] Accordingly, the Plaintiff repeated performance of the settlement of the price for goods to the Defendant.