1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 3,520,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from November 10, 2015 to August 10, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. Around October 22, 2015 and November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to carry out the pET printing work on the PET film.

The manufacturing process of pulping, processing and finished products shall be as follows:

In other words, if the plaintiff requests a pte film processing to the defendant while supplying the pte film, the defendant conducts a pteping on the Pte film provided by the plaintiff and supplies half-finished products attached to the ete film to the plaintiff.

Since then, the plaintiff processed the crypting in the above semi-finished goods and made finished products which attached the crypt film.

In the case of using finished products, first of all, the plaintiff's dual film is removed, the Glasss are attached, and the defendant's dual film is removed and attached to the mobile phone balance.

B. At the time, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to produce in accordance with the standard of clinical processing in accordance with the ABG Quality Agreement (hereinafter “AS Quality Agreement”).

In the quality agreement of E.S., "3. external appearance", the following inspection standards are set forth in the category of "glusium" and "the pattern of glusium".

The inspection criteria for item-based criteria are not modeled on the pattern of 10 or less 10 times at the time of attachment of Glas (see referring to approved sampling) provided by APS at least 30 persons at the time of attachment of Glas (referring to approved sampling), and there is no model on the pattern of 0.4T Glas at the time of attachment of not more than 0.4T Glas (including the pattern of string) (including the pattern of string).

C. On October 22, 2015, the Defendant received PET film, solution solution, etc. from the Plaintiff, used the Defendant’s equipment and machinery, and supplied the Plaintiff with each of the 6,000 meters of actual container around October 22, 2015, and 12,000 meters of actual container on November 9, 2015.

Around November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,650,00 to the Defendant as the price for the actual container hosting work on October 22, 2015, but did not pay KRW 3,520,000 as the price for the actual container hosting work on November 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2.