1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Company A is KRW 204,272,143 and KRW 39,763,111 among them.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition.

B. Determination 1 as to the Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendants asserted that they met part of their obligations against the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the completion of the extinctive prescription. 2) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants were extinguished by the completion of the extinctive prescription. However, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff received a favorable judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2005Gahap101791) against the Defendants on August 23, 2006, and the said judgment can be recognized as having become final and conclusive on October 31, 2006. The Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on June 13, 2016, which was ten years after the lapse of the extinctive prescription.

Defendant B asserted that the above judgment was invalid since it was served to a place other than Defendant B’s residence, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The grounds for the defendants' counterclaim claim are as shown in the attached Form.

B. However, the Defendants’ counterclaim claim is unlawful since there is no correlation between the principal claim and the defense method.

3. The plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit is justified, and the defendants' counterclaim is dismissed.