1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The pertinent Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing bedclothess, etc. with the trade name “D”.

The defendants are couples and couples who engage in trade business, such as bedclothess, kitchen supplies, etc., with the trade name of "E".

B. From around 2013, the Plaintiff did not receive value-added tax of KRW 2,132,600 as a result of supplying bedclothess to the Defendants from around 2013 (hereinafter “instant supply contract”). On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants for the supply of bedclothess equivalent to KRW 83,128,00 (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

(1) The Defendants entered into a contract with the Defendants on November 4, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant bedclothes”) and the goods of bedclothes, such as flicks, blicks, and blicks, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant bedclothes”).

(2) The Defendants supplied the Plaintiff with the instant bedclothes as the price for the instant bedclothes, KRW 30 million on October 6, 2014, the day of the contract, KRW 30 million on December 29, 2014, and KRW 10 million on February 17, 2015, respectively.

C. The Defendants’ product supply and content certification 1) The Defendants provide the instant bedclothes to F. G (G; hereinafter “G”) as a local corporation of the United States operated by Defendant B’s mother on a total of three occasions on October 14, 2014, October 18, 2014, and November 5, 2014.

On November 14, 2014, and November 17, 2014, and December 1, 2014, the above goods arrive in each United States. 2) The Defendant’s mother sent a certificate to the Plaintiff on June 16, 2015, stating that “F, as the Defendant’s mother, did not attach labels indicating trademark and handling attention to a large quantity of products, and discovered large quantities of damaged products, such as furne and oil pollution, etc., and children’s fat are not exempt goods, but children’s fats are not in line with each other, and in the case of extreme products, approximately KRW 30 million were withheld because they were loaded only with fat and difficult.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments.