Due to the claims for goods, payment shall be made.

Since the Defendant is obligated to pay the goods to the Intervenor, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the amount in arrears to the Intervenor.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014 Gohap 53105 Collection Money

Korea

AAAA

July 23, 2015

August 27, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 560,381,610 won and 20% interest per annum from May 13, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant, including the cost of the supplementary participation.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) Conclusion of a contract to place goods and supply goods, etc.;

On August 25, 2009, the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor entered into a contract on the placing of goods with the content that the Intervenor supplies goods and services of KRW 8,400,000 (excluding value-added tax) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant product placement contract”), and the details thereof are as follows:

The Plaintiff Intervenor supplied the Defendant with KRW 58,60,000, the first bus 2,143,000,000, ② development expenses, drawings, documents, software 731,00,000, and KRW 731,000,00 of the parts for remodeling of the three additional buses: ④ The Plaintiff Intervenor supplied the Defendant with KRW 795,00,000, totaling KRW 4,257,60,000, and KRW 4,257,60,000, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff Intervenor of the fact that the examination was completed by satisfying the technical requirements agreed with the Defendant on December 20, 2012.

In addition to the above goods and others, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor supplied the Defendant with a substantial portion of three sets of parts for bus remodeling. The Defendant paid KRW 4,257,60,000 to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor regarding the instant goods order contract.

B. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s failure to pay national taxes and seizure of the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff’s Intervenor failed to pay the value-added tax for the second period of 2012 and the corporate tax for the second year of 2012. On May 27, 2013, the CCC head of the tax office under the Plaintiff’s CCC head attached the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s claim for the price of goods based on the instant product placement contract against the Defendant to collect the above national tax, etc. (including additional dues) delinquent by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and notified the Defendant thereof. The above notification reached the Defendant around

The above national tax, etc. (including additional dues) in arrears by April 11, 2014 is a total of 560,381,610 won.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap, the entries in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 8 (including a serial number if a serial number is not indicated; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings (the defendant shall be declared as KRW 8,400,000 in the reply of July 16, 2014, which was stated on the date of first pleading on August 28, 2014, which was led to the confession that the price for the issuance of the instant product was KRW 8,40,000,000, which was stated on the date of fourth pleading on July 23, 2015, and there was a contract between the defendant and the plaintiff’s assistant, and the actual price was approximately KRW 4,50,000,000, which was stated on the date of fourth pleading on July 23, 2015. However, the confession was revoked since there was no evidence to acknowledge that the confession was against the truth and due to mistake.)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Goods, etc., the examination of which was completed on December 20, 2012;

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 4,257,60,000 to the Plaintiff until December 20, 2012, and that the value-added tax was agreed to separately pay under the instant product placement contract. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 4,683,360,00 (= KRW 4,257,600 + KRW 4,257,60,000 + KRW 4,257,60,000 + KRW 4,257,60,000 + 10%).

However, the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 4,257,60,000 to the Intervenor to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor regarding the instant product placement contract is as examined in the above basic facts. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 425,760,00 (= KRW 4,683,360,000 - KRW 4,257,60,000) to the Intervenor.

(b) Other relevant goods, etc. supplied;

In addition to the goods, etc. whose examination was completed on December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff asserts that the Intervenor supplied the Defendant with the goods, etc. equivalent to KRW 1,976,400,00 in accordance with the instant product ordering contract, the Defendant is liable to pay the said amount.

The facts that the Intervenor supplied the Defendant with the part equivalent to 82% of the part for remodeling of the 3 additional buses by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor are without dispute between the parties, and that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor supplied the goods, etc. to the Defendant in excess of this is difficult to believe that the details of the supplied goods, etc. and the evidentiary materials do not exist, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor supplied goods, etc. equivalent to 2,728,140,000 of the value of the parts for remodeling of the 3 additional 3 buses as seen in the above basic facts to the Defendant, which is equivalent to 82% of the value of the parts for remodeling of the 2,728,140,000 won among the 3,327,00,000 won

However, according to the above facts and the purport of the whole arguments, among the goods, etc. for which the Defendant completed the examination on December 20, 2012, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 588,60,000 among the three parts parts for remodeling buses of the additional three specificationss, ② the sum of KRW 1,383,600,000 for an additional three specifications for bus remodeling, and KRW 1,383,60,000 for an additional three specifications for bus remodeling, shall be included in the three parts for remodeling buses. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,344,540,00 (= KRW 2,728,140,000 - KRW 1,383,60,000 in value-added tax) separately from the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor’s goods under the agreement to pay KRW 404,504,000 in addition to the price of the goods under the agreement.

Therefore, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s total amount of KRW 1,478,994,00 (=1,344,540,000) +

134,454,00 won is liable to pay them.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor KRW 1,904,754,00 (i.e., KRW 425,760,00 + KRW 1,478,94,00). Of the above amount to the Plaintiff who subrogated the Plaintiff’s Intervenor pursuant to Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 560,381,61,610 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff to the day of complete payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

(a) Defenses regarding the prerequisite for the payment of goods, etc.;

The Defendant: (a) premised on the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s transfer and transfer of technology; (b) complete supply of goods; and (c) provision of package services for goods; (b) transfer of technology was not made; (c) partially supplied goods were partially returned; and (d) did not properly provide package services; and (e) the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor did not have any obligation to pay the price for the goods, etc.

First, in relation to the transfer and transfer of technology, the health team, and the Plaintiff claimed the payment in relation to the part of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s completion of the transfer and transfer of technology. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

Second, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant paid the price of the goods, etc. to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the condition that the goods are completely supplied. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Third, the facts that part of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor were returned to the Defendant are also the Plaintiff’s 1). According to the evidence evidence No. A or 4, it can be acknowledged that the problems occurred in the direct placement, etc. on the goods supplied by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and related defect security obligations or damages liability of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor are in a concurrent performance relationship with the Defendant’s payment liability. However, even in such a case, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant may refuse payment corresponding to the defect security liability or damages liability and may not refuse payment of the remainder. It is reasonable to conclude that there is no evidence to acknowledge the defect security liability or damages liability, and there is no evidence to support that the Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor does not reach the amount of the Plaintiff’s payment to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor by subrogation of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor. Accordingly, the Defendant’s aforementioned defense is without merit.

(b) Loan set-off defense;

The defendant has lent KRW 200,000 to the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor, which is set off against it.2) The defendant's defense against the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor Nos. 1 is merely the defendant's unilateral statement in accordance with the purport that the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor borrowed KRW 200,000,000,000.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

2) While the Defendant asserts that the representative director of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor borrowed the above KRW 200,000,000 from the Defendant, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor borrowed the above KRW 2,00,000 from the Defendant.