1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s main claim and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim filed in the trial.

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff received a business proposal regarding the export of heavy equipment from the Defendant, and invested KRW 20 million on July 12, 2012, KRW 300,000,000,000 on August 10, 2012, and KRW 250,000 on August 29, 2012. The Defendant agreed to return 31 million, including dividends, to the Plaintiff by November 15, 2012. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 31 million to the Plaintiff.

(Causes of Claim). (b)

The defendant asserted that around October 2012, the defendant purchased used goods, such as containers, electric appliances, mooringss, and steel plates, which were around 700 square meters in Incheon Seo-gu, Incheon, through the plaintiff, in KRW 16 million, but around the end of 2012, the plaintiff transferred the ownership of the above used goods with the plaintiff and paid additional cash of KRW 1.3 million to the plaintiff in lieu of the return of the above investment amount. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the return of the above investment amount was all extinguished.

Even if it is not so, the Plaintiff is obligated to purchase the heavy equipment in the chemical outbreak and receive a total of KRW 30 million from the Defendant on October 25, 201, and KRW 34.7 million on October 27, 201, while receiving KRW 34.7 million from the Defendant on October 27, 2011, but did not purchase the heavy equipment and does not return it. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 34.7 million to the Defendant for unjust enrichment or damages.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a preliminary defense, offsets the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment or damage claim against the Defendant’s claim for the return of the above investment amount against the Defendant, and sought the payment of the said amount by a counterclaim.

(Ground of counterclaim) 2. Determination

A. On October 26, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 31 million to the Plaintiff by November 15, 2012 with respect to the Plaintiff’s investment deposit on October 26, 2012 does not conflict between the parties. Thus, the Defendant served the Plaintiff with the payment order of this case.