1. On June 1, 2013 to October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount.

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 sells automobile parts, and the Defendant is a gold-type manufacturer, etc. using the trade name “B,” and the Plaintiff was a gold-type manufacturer, etc. from November 2008 to consultation with the Defendant on the production of gold-type. On March 9, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the production of gold-type products (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant with the following content.

- Manufacturing Products: UPPER BR INR-type 9 punishment (LH 5 punishment, RH 4 punishment), UPPPERBR-type 9 punishment (LH 5 punishment, RH 4 punishment) - Manufacturing amount: 120,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax) - Manufacturing period: March 25, 2010;

B. On April 24, 2009, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 90,00,000 in total, KRW 30,000,000 on June 15, 2009, and KRW 30,000 on March 26, 2010.

C. On March 26, 2010, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the foregoing UPPPER BRINR (LH 5 punishment, RH4 punishment) and UPPPPPER BROTR (LH 5 punishment, RH 4 punishment (hereinafter “instant gold punishment”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (if there is an additional number, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The gold type of this case supplied by the defendant around March 26, 2010 was in need of revision, and it was not attached with multiple set essential for the use of gold, and the defendant decided to revise the gold type of this case and re-delivery the gold type on July 23, 2010. The plaintiff continued to request the delivery of the corrected gold type to the defendant after the plaintiff, but did not implement the contract of this case. The plaintiff cancelled the contract of this case on the ground of the defendant's non-performance of delivery obligation by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff, as restitution, an advance payment of 90,000,000 won paid by the plaintiff.) The defendant's assertion that the contract of this case was entered into in the original contract of this case.