1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) had 87,668.60 U.S. dollars for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from March 16, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs a business of selling computer-related materials in the name of “C”, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells electronic parts.

On August 9, 2018, the quantity of the goods on the date of supply (open lines) 1.3,950,000 on August 30, 2018; 3,950,000; 25,778.80 on August 30, 2018; 20,950,00 on September 20, 2018; 25,950,00 on September 20, 2018; 494.90 on October 1, 200, 11,700,000 on October 4, 2018; 90,000, 13,750,000, 87,668.60

B. The Plaintiff supplied the following goods to Slovaki D, a local corporation (hereinafter “Slovaki”), which was established by the Defendant Company with the total amount of capital, for convenience:

(The goods supplied by the plaintiff are referred to as the "products of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The gist of the parties' assertion argues that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 87,68.60 shares of the goods and delay damages, since the plaintiff supplied the goods of this case to the non-party company upon the defendant's request, the defendant is not the defendant but the non-party company that received the goods of this case, and thus, the non-party company should receive the price of goods from the non-party

B. The fundamental issue of the claim of this case concerning the cause of the claim is whether the party to the transaction bears the obligation to pay for the goods of this case against the plaintiff, or whether the party to the transaction is the defendant or the non-party company.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the aforementioned evidence and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 14, and 17 (including paper numbers), i.e., the plaintiff started to supply computer-related materials to the defendant from July 2012 to continue to exist between the defendant and the plaintiff from July 2012, and ② the materials purchased from the plaintiff to the non-party company.