1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 23,933,500 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from November 15, 2014 to October 16, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with the Defendant to develop and deliver an integrated computer system, including website, shopping mall (Internet and mobile), ERP (members’ management, funds log), and the POS system (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

The service cost shall be KRW 42,00,000 (including value-added tax), and the down payment of KRW 12,600,000 shall be paid within seven days from the contract date, and the intermediate payment shall be paid within seven days after the Plaintiff completed and delivered the first website and shopping mall, etc., and the balance shall be paid within seven days from the date of the last completion and inspection.

B. The Defendant initially requested B to build an integrated computer system, and the Plaintiff, through B, continued to engage in consultation and system development since August 29, 2013, while entering into the instant service contract.

B, at the time of entering into the instant service contract, affixed the Plaintiff’s seal to the contract as the guarantor, and prepared a separate letter of guarantor agreement.

On September 5, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 12,600,000 and KRW 10,000,000 to B, and paid KRW 16,760,00 to B again on October 24, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, during the period of development of the system specified in the instant service agreement, the Plaintiff leased a mersh shop, carpet24 to open the Defendant’s website and shopping mall, and paid KRW 533,500 at its own expense.

(except for money partially returned): Facts without dispute, Gap 2, Gap 6-1 through 16, Gap 12, Eul 1, Eul 3, 4, and 8; the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. The assertion and judgment on the counterclaim of the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant concluded the instant service contract on October 21, 2013, setting the scope of development as indicated in the evidence No. 4 (Attachment 2, Statement of Establishment of Integrated Computer System) to the extent possible.

After that, the plaintiff completes the system development and accepts it to the defendant.