1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 118,200,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from January 9, 2015 to March 23, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant produced slot machines, but agreed to provide the Plaintiff with all the data related to the production of slurbling machines and pay the manufacturing cost.

B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million on November 7, 2014, KRW 5 million on November 19, 2014, and KRW 15 million on November 19, 2014 as the advance payment.

C. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with the Defendant to repair one electric shocking machine (the drum width of 1,000; hereinafter “the 1st heading machine”) and to manufacture and supply two electric shocking machines (the drum width of 2,200; hereinafter “the 2nding machine”) (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the main contents of the contract are as follows.

The price: Total sum of KRW 233,200,00 (including value-added tax): 31,903,000 (excluding value-added tax): The unit price for the new production for the second half-time period: 90,048,500 won (excluding value-added tax): From August 19, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (Provided, That the time limit for payment shall be adjusted to the shortest period): 50% of the advance payment, 30% of the intermediate payment, and 20% of the remainder at the time of shipment after the inspection (the payment shall be based on the remainder after excluding the down payment 15,00,000 won, and the time limit for payment for the intermediate payment and the time limit for payment shall be adjusted after mutual consultation): Defendant factory (including the place of supply without delay).

D. On December 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the repair of the first slopingman, and manufactured and supplied the second slopingman around January 8, 2015.

On the other hand, on December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 110 million from the green technology of the Defendant, a contractor, but returned KRW 10 million at the request of the said green technology on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of pleading [Evidence of Evidence] is 2 and 3.