1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 144,520,00,000 with full payment from March 1, 2012.

1. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Contract), 2 (Written Estimate), 3-1 through 3 (each tax invoice), Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 6 (each of Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 through 5 (each of the Internet information), Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 8-1 and 2 (each of the Internet information), and the whole purport of arguments as a result of appraiser Nos. 4 and 8's appraisal, the plaintiff made a contract with the defendant on Sept. 25, 2010 to deliver all of the scam Nos. 234,520,000 (hereinafter "the machinery of this case") and all of the accessory equipment used for scam and original scam Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter "the machinery of this case") to the defendant on Sep. 25, 2010, it can be acknowledged that the machinery of this case was supplied to the defendant on Oct. 30, 2010.

The appraisal result of appraiser C, contrary to this, does not believe it, and there is no other counter-proof evidence.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is a person who received KRW 90,000,000 from the defendant among the mechanical costs of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 144,520,00 in balance of the instant mechanical proceeds (i.e., KRW 234,520,000 in - KRW 90,000 in -) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 1, 2012 (the day following the delivery day of a duplicate of the instant complaint) to the day of complete payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on the grounds of the principal claim and the grounds of the counterclaim

A. The machinery of this case supplied by the plaintiff by the plaintiff can not be used as a decoration because it is a defect that is either attached to the fire fighting gun or continuous explosion because the wind of this case can only be lower than that of the wind when operated, and the machinery of this case can not be used as a decoration because it is hard to saw the fire fighting gun because it is excessively injected into the NAr with the wind.

Despite the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff did not completely repair the defects of the instant machinery.

Accordingly, the defendant shall make a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case.