1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the amount that orders payment under the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is that the Plaintiff is a person engaged in the production and processing of industrial films under the trade name of “B”, and the Defendant is a company with the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retailing business.

B. The Defendant entered into and implemented the instant supply contract (1) on January 30, 2012, the protective film (19 microdials, 1,230 meters thick, hereinafter the same shall apply) against the Plaintiff on January 30, 2012.

1) Total sum of 108,000m (hereinafter “instant protected films”)

) The Defendant produced the quantity and ordered the work to be attached to transparent films (T-TPP FILM) provided by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

2) The instant protective film is the Defendant’s transparent film, which is attached to the Defendant’s transparent film, to protect the Defendant’s transparent film from the instant high temperature occurring in the production process of households, etc., and must be easily removed from the transparent film subject to the protection after the production is completed, and the content of the protective film, such as the post-explosion system, should not remain in the transparent film. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are “the first shipment below the transparent film with the completion of work on February 12, 2012 where the protective film of 36,00 meters is attached.”

(C) On February 17, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a document that, as a result of the heating test, the said protective film produced by the Plaintiff failed to meet the heat resistance in 140cc and 150cc, proposed to recover the first shipment portion sent to Turkey, and conducted the work of removing the protective film of 28,000 meters, which was waiting for shipment, from a transparent film, from a transparent film.

2. On February 29, 2012, the Defendant was produced by the Plaintiff in order to test the performance of the primary shipment of Turkey, giving notice that there may be defects in the primary shipment to Turkey base stations.