1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received products listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

(a) A counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together;

1. Basic facts

A. The Daejeon Regional Procurement Service, with respect to C containing the instant product, determined the general method of contract, general (total amount), method of tender (total amount), and delivery term February 15, 2016, and estimated price of 360,514,755 won (* surcharge separately) and publicly announced the purchase bid for the procurement commodities.

B. According to the public notice of the purchase bid, both the Plaintiff (spouseD) and the Defendant bid, the Defendant was awarded a bid of KRW 311,352,000 for the bid amount. The Defendant entered into a goods contract with Daejeon Regional Procurement Service with the contract amount of KRW 311,352,00 for the above C and the total contract amount of KRW 311,352,00 for the above goods contract (hereinafter “instant goods contract”).

C. On May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of products with the content that the amount of the said C is KRW 216,50,000 of the contract amount, KRW 120,000 of the down payment, KRW 120,000 of the remainder of the State bond (the instant product), and the amount of the first (the instant product) of the total amount of the payment, after the delivery, shall be paid in cash, and the amount of the second (State bond) portion (the instant product) shall be paid in cash prior to the delivery (hereinafter “instant product supply contract”).

The Plaintiff supplied the first (this Article) portion among the above C to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 corresponding to the down payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 96,500,000,000 corresponding to the remainder to the Plaintiff at the same time as the Defendant received the instant product corresponding to the second (State bonds) portion from the Plaintiff. 2) Furthermore, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the value-added tax separately at the time of entering into the instant product supply contract. Thus, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff should additionally pay KRW 21,650,000 to the Plaintiff.