1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 16,383,400 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from August 6, 2014 to April 3, 2015.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in industrial machinery manufacturing business, etc. under the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant is a company engaged in manufacturing business, etc.

B. On June 11, 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract for the production and supply of outdoor softing (type 1) of C Metal Co., Ltd. with the value-added tax of KRW 926,673,00 (including value-added tax) by determining the amount of goods as KRW 926,673,00 (including value-added tax) and the amount of goods as KRW 233,20,000 (including value-added tax).

C. On August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff is called “the floodgate of this case” between the Defendant and the above C Metal Corporation, which read “the floodgate of this case” as “the floodgate of this case.

() Manufacturing, processing, assembling, and supply (10 forms) during the supply period from August 1, 2013 to September 10, 2013, the contract amount of KRW 242,00,000 (including value-added tax, and hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract agreement”) is deemed as the “instant contract.”

5. Contract amount: 220,00,000 won for contract amount and value-added tax (no amount shall be settled under a type 1 contract): 10-type production and processing unit price: 22,00,000 won/1 (value-added tax separate supply terms: the inspection of the goods in question shall be conducted in the presence of the inspector at the place of the order, and the successful decision shall be made by conducting inspections, such as a list for the treatment of the goods by entry and inspection, etc.

6. Payment: Advance payment (30%) : 66,00,000 won after the material was supplied (50%) 110,000,000 won after the completion of installation (10%) 22,00,000 won after the completion of trial (10%) 22: 22,000,000 won after the end of each month, and 9 interest rate for delay payment as of the end of the following month after the end of each month: 3/100% in the contract of this case, but it appears that 3/100 is a clerical error of 3/100.

On November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the supply of the instant floodgate language under the instant contract, and up to now, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 48,400,000 (including value-added tax) out of the supply price under the instant contract by the Defendant.