1. Of the parts concerning the counterclaim of a judgment of the court of first instance, the amount which exceeds the amount which orders payment from the following.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around October 2009, the Plaintiff, who operated a private company manufacturing and selling the surface protection tape in the name of “B,” entered into a contract with the Defendant and the Plaintiff to supply the product to the Defendant with an order sheet stating the size and quantity. If the Plaintiff requested the supply of the product, the Defendant entered into the contract with the Defendant to pay the amount for the supply of the protection film, the presiding agent for the production of the surface protection tape corresponding thereto.

B. From the conclusion of the contract to May 201, the Plaintiff was supplied with the protective films of the size and quantity necessary at that time by the Defendant from the time to May 201, and distributed them to the customer after producing the surface protective tape.

C. From among the surface protection tapes produced and supplied to customers from March 201 to May 2011, the Plaintiff was missing from the surface protection tape.

When she or (so-called “conformation in the shape,” or the surface protection tape was attached to the spatched, there was a defect in the spatch in which she remains in the spatch. D.

Meanwhile, from October 2009 to May 201, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the protective film for manufacturing the surface protection tape at that time, and settled the amount of the protective film for that month at the end of each month, and received part of the goods price from the Plaintiff for an irregular period.

The details of transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are as shown in the separate sheet of transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The price that the Defendant was not supplied with the protective film to the Plaintiff is KRW 186,725,49 as of August 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 18, and 25, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The cause of the defect in the surface protection tape caused by the defect is the main issue in this case, and this part of the judgment is directly related to the principal claim and the counterclaim.