1. The Korea Commercial Arbitration Board concerning the case No. 1411-0075 of the KCAB between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2013, the Defendant introduced the Plaintiff from the Korea Atomic Fuel Co., Ltd., the primary place of the launch, and received a written estimate from the Plaintiff regarding the installation and supply of “B system” (hereinafter “instant system”).

B. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the production and supply of facilities (hereinafter “instant contract”) of the instant system, and then supplied hardware and software of the said system on November 19, 2013, and claimed the payment of the price on December 27, 2013, but the Defendant refused the payment of the price on the grounds of lack of lighting equipment and lack of technical data.

C. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 14(2) of the instant contract, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for payment of KRW 107,525,000 (No. 1411-075) with the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board (No. 1411-075). The Korea Commercial Arbitration Board accepted most of the Plaintiff’s applications and rendered an arbitral award as indicated in the attached Form on August 28, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Award in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The enforcement of a judgment on the cause of a claim shall be made by the judgment of execution by the court, and an arbitral award made in the Republic of Korea shall be enforced unless there is any ground under Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act (Article 37(1) and Article 38 of the Arbitration Act), and in the absence of any evidence to acknowledge that there is a ground under Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act with respect to the instant arbitral award, compulsory execution based on the instant arbitral award is reasonable.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. According to the Defendant’s argument in the instant arbitral award, the Plaintiff completed the delivery of the instant system on December 10, 2013, which was far earlier than the date of the payment under the instant contract, on August 7, 2014, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 70,380,000 to the Defendant for delay under the instant contract.