1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 7,220,441 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from September 1, 2015 to May 20, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of tobacco and textile products with the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing textile products.

B. The Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with raw materials and requested the Plaintiff to perform a tobacco processing process to make the goods loaded in the room, and accordingly, the Plaintiff processed and supplied the raw materials to the Defendant.

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of KRW 1,364,880 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and KRW 5,855,561 on August 31, 2015, as the processing price for a full-time company.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Main elements;

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 7,220,441 per annum per annum under the Commercial Act from September 1, 2015 to May 20, 2016, which is the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case (the service date of the original decision on performance recommendation) from September 1, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case (the service date of the original decision on performance recommendation) and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to

B. First of all, the defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion 1 argues that the parties to the processing transaction with the plaintiff will be a corporation, that the defendant supplied raw materials to the plaintiff as a subordinate company of Thai, Inc., and received processed goods from the plaintiff, and that the defendant subsequently succeeded to the status of the contractor of Thai, Inc. with the intention to make internal settlement with Thai, Inc. and succeeded to the status of the defendant.

The plaintiff asserts that only the tax invoice for the processing cost of the above company was in the name of Tae, Inc., and that all the parties to the transaction were the plaintiff and the defendant.

In conclusion, this part of the claim has no influence on the judgment of the above principal claim, but has been a key issue between the parties, and the plaintiff is the plaintiff.