1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 122,798,881 and also the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Except for seeking a dismissal of a principal claim on the lawfulness of a counterclaim, if other active contents are not included in the counterclaim, it shall be deemed that there is no profit as a counterclaim.

Therefore, it is unlawful to seek the confirmation of existence of the same obligation with respect to a claim for performance based on a certain claim as a counterclaim because the content of the counterclaim substantially seeks rejection of the claim on the merits.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da40709 Decided April 13, 2007). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 122,791,881, which was not paid out of the sum of the rent processing fees for the automobile parts supplied to the Defendant, from April 1, 2013 to October 31, 2013, as principal lawsuit, from April 1, 2013 to October 31, 2013.

On the other hand, the defendant is seeking confirmation of the absence of the obligation to pay the processing fees as a counter-claim. This is the fact that the claim is practically seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's main claim or does not contain any other active contents, so there is no benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim is unlawful.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the processing of automobile parts with the trade name B, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures automobile parts. 2) On June 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, under which the Plaintiff was supplied with the automobile parts (six-high wheels) from the Defendant and processed them and supplied them to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the processing fees are set at KRW 430 per unit (excluding value-added tax).

3 The Plaintiff processed and supplied the automobile parts to the Defendant from June 2012 to October 2013 under the instant contract.

However, with respect to the transaction that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, the defendant delayed the payment of the transaction price supplied after April 1, 2013, and the plaintiff on April 1, 2013.