1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 35,640,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from August 15, 2017 to December 11, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the production and supply of H.U.D (Hed-UP Dissy A/M) type three gold type (L1, L2, L3; hereinafter “the gold type of this case”) of KRW 108,00,000 (in addition, KRW 43,200,000,000 in advance amounting to 30% of the price within 30 days from the beginning of the gold production, and the intermediate payment of KRW 32,40,000 in advance amounting to 30% of the price within 30 days from the beginning of the gold production, and the balance of KRW 32,40,00 in advance after receipt of the report of completion of gold-type tally, and each of the period of January 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant gold type”).

B. On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 47,520,00 (including surtax) to the Defendant.

C. On January 25, 2017, the Defendant made the instant gold-type early withdrawal (the first withdrawal) implications, and the Plaintiff demanded the improvement that the video would be distorted due to the refratation.

On February 2, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to change the lag design to improve the lag, and when the lag’s location changed, the instant gold punishment was revised several times in response to the location, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant gold punishment to the Plaintiff around April 6, 2017 upon the Plaintiff’s request.

On April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rescission of the instant contract on the grounds that the instant gold penalty failed to pass the Plaintiff’s final evaluation of quality and that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract, and the said notification reached the Defendant on April 19, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 3, 4, 13, and 14 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not deliver the instant gold paper until January 31, 2017, which is the delivery time limit stipulated in the instant contract, and was placed at delay of performance. Although the Plaintiff gave an opportunity to improve quality, there were defects, such as the occurrence of dralfing, the violation of the spectrum standards, and the violation of external measurements.

The plaintiff on April 18, 2017.