1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 5,470,400 as well as the full payment from January 1, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity engaged in the business of repairing furniture and creating furnitures with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a company whose business purpose is software development and distribution, the business of manufacturing wooden bridges, etc.

B. On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a product supply contract with the Defendant to manufacture and supply “D” products at the Defendant’s request (hereinafter “instant product supply contract”).

The main contents of the product supply contract of this case are as follows.

Article 1 (Purpose) The plaintiff manufactures and supplies products at the request of the defendant, and the defendant is supplied with them.

Article 3 (Term of Contract) The term of this Agreement shall be until the date the defendant notifies the plaintiff of the suspension of the supply of the product by wire or in writing.

Article 5 (Time Limit of Delivery and Delivery Conditions) The Plaintiff shall produce products under mutual consultation after ordering and deliver them to the places designated by the Defendant, and submit relevant certificates to the Defendant.

Article 6 (Mutual Consultations)

1. When the Plaintiff is unable to deliver the product within the delivery date, he/she shall apply in writing to the Defendant in advance for approval of the postponement of delivery, and in such a case, he/she shall compensate for the delayed compensation of 1/100 for the amount of 1/100 for each day of delay.

Article 9 (Return of Goods)

1. In any of the following cases, the defendant may request the plaintiff to return and re-production:

(i) the volume and size of the product(s) under section 11(s) of the product(s).

1. The parties shall compensate the other party for any loss resulting from the failure to perform their duties under this contract or individual arrangements on the basis of the cause attributable to them.

C. On September 25, 2014, the Defendant ordered “D” 50 feet to the Plaintiff according to the instant product supply contract, and subsequently ordered three sets as sampling products.

D..