1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

2...

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, through the Defendant’s or Defendant’s wife C’s account, remitted the sum of KRW 69.7 million to the Plaintiff as indicated below (hereinafter “the instant money”).

Details of remittance by Defendant: (a) KRW 69,70,000,000,000 won on July 1, 2011; (b) KRW 5,5 million on August 1, 2012; and (c) KRW 69,70,000,000 on August 1, 201.

B. On June 27, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased a total of 5,00 networks of 3,200 ions from D on June 30, 201 and 1,800 ions from E on June 30, 2011 (hereinafter “instant ions”); (b) stored KRW 65,000,000 per network (hereinafter “instant ions”); (c) sold the instant ions not exceeding KRW 7,500 per network between February 15, 2012 and April 13, 2012.

Plaintiff

Details of remittance: KRW 27,40,000,000 won on April 30, 2012; KRW 23,000,000,000 on June 23, 2014;

C. The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 27.4 million to the Defendant as stated in the following “the details of remittance of the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that, upon the defendant's request, the plaintiff received the money of this case from the defendant and purchased it, and sold it in the plaintiff's warehouse, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of 10 million won of storage fees (5,000 x 2,000 won per network x 5,000 won of storage fees), 1.5 million won of delivery expenses (5,000 x 300 won of delivery expenses per network x 300 won of delivery expenses per network) and its delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not request the plaintiff to purchase the chip of this case, and there is no fact that the defendant requested the plaintiff to keep the chip of this case in the warehouse.

On October 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant lent the instant money to the Plaintiff by requesting the Defendant to lend money to the Defendant because the funds necessary to purchase the chip.