1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 60,594,561 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from June 16, 2017 to May 10, 2018.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and wholesale and retails assembly metal products in Bupyeong-si, Busan. The Defendant is engaged in mechanical design, packing machinery manufacturing business, etc. with the trade name of “F” in Michuhol-gu, Incheon.

B. From June 21, 2016 to June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with machinery parts or processed machinery products equivalent to the total amount of KRW 97,958,861 as shown in the attached Form.

C. The Defendant paid 37,364,300 won out of the above goods price to the Plaintiff.

[Based on Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including additional numbers), September 27, 2019, and the result of the order of submission of tax information to the Director of Incheon Tax Office on October 24, 2019, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,594,561 (=97,958,861 won-37,364,300) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 16, 2017 to May 10, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, from June 16, 2017 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that some of the prices of the goods for which the Plaintiff seeks payment is erroneous in relation to the entry of the amount in the specification of transaction, and in particular, the transaction equivalent to the total amount of KRW 42,703,00 as of October 4, 2016, which the Plaintiff claims on October 8, 2016, and October 26, 2016, and October 31, 2016, only requested the Plaintiff to make the processing schedule and estimate and did not place an order for the pertinent goods. However, the Defendant asserted to the effect that there was no fact that the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff delivered a written estimate to the Defendant in response to the request for the order accompanied by the Defendant’s drawing. In other words, the Defendant delivered a written estimate to the Defendant, which states the specific unit price, etc. by item, in response to