1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) A Co., Ltd. is from September 24, 2013 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 90,940,00 and its amount.

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. As to the claim for the payment of goods against the Defendant Company from May 2006 to August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with the goods, such as lots, and the Defendant Company did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 90,940,00 for the goods up to the date of payment to the date of payment, there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of KRW 90,940,00 for the unpaid goods and KRW 20 per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 24, 2013 to the date following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

B. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the claim for damages against Defendant B and C spreads false information that a large quantity of salt was generated on the pen supplied by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s trader, etc., and as a result, the transaction with the Plaintiff was suspended and the sales amount was reduced. As such, Defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B and C made the said remarks to the Plaintiff’s trader, etc., the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendant Company supplied U.S. C. C. carcers to the Defendant Company from July 2012, the Plaintiff supplied them. From the above domestic carcers, it was found that salt ingredients were excessively detected in the above domestic carcers, and thereafter, the Defendant Company’s input into the gold production licensee of the Defendant Company, resulting in defective quality, such as foreign material, ice, ice, grass, low luminous, etc. in finished products.

Since it is clear that defective products have no longer occurred as it was changed to the paper of manufacture of other companies on August 6, 2013, and there is a defect in the above domestic camera, the defendant company has the greatest number of defective products to the plaintiff.