1. As to the Korean Commercial Arbitration Act No. 1311-0171 case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board shall become the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the business of selling production equipment to semiconductors, L CDs, and solar manufacturers. The Defendant is the B’s representative who collects and sells waste materials.

B. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods, such as waste materials, and paid the price equivalent to KRW 12,826,549, but has not been paid up until now.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for arbitration with the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board under Article 1311-01 of the Arbitration Act, and the arbitral tribunal rendered an award as shown in the attached Form No. 12, May 12, 2014 (hereinafter “instant arbitral award”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Examination of the determination, an objection to an arbitral award made in the Republic of Korea may be raised only by means of filing a lawsuit for setting aside the arbitral award (Article 36(1) of the Arbitration Act), and the setting aside of the arbitral award shall be limited to the grounds prescribed in Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act, and a lawsuit for setting aside the arbitral award shall be brought within three months from the date on which the claimant is served with the certified copy of the arbitral award.

(Article 36(3) of the Arbitration Act. The instant arbitral award has a statutory ground for revocation.

The recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award under Article 37(1) of the Arbitration Act shall be determined by the court's approval or execution judgment, in the absence of any evidence to acknowledge that a suit for cancellation has been filed.

Pursuant to the above ruling, compulsory execution based on the above ruling should be permitted.

3. The defendant's argument that the above KRW 10,00,000 should be deducted from the price of the goods claimed by the plaintiff, since the defendant did not make direct transactions with the plaintiff, but traded with the plaintiff via C, and paid KRW 10,00,000 as the down payment.

In addition, the defendant cannot submit any evidence to support the above argument, and the above argument is also in the arbitral procedure of this case.