1. The defendant takes delivery of the goods listed in the attached list from the plaintiff and at the same time, KRW 338,827,095 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Public Procurement Service, the Plaintiff’s agency that entered into the instant contract, made a public notice of the bid for the procurement commodities (outboard) to one of the clessstal exploration technicians upon the request for procurement from the Navy headquarters.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, who was selected as the successful bidder in D as the contract amount of USD 347,00, USD 150 days from the date of issuance of the letter of credit, and the supplier’s supplier’s goods purchase contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) between the Defendant and the Defendant, under which the terms and conditions of delivery are prescribed as the designated port loading (FOB).

B. The Plaintiff issued a credit on November 29, 2012 in accordance with the instant contract, and on December 6, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 376,474,550 (Korean won equivalent to USD 347,00 in the purchase price) to the IBK Bank, an issuing bank of the credit.

IBK Bank received shipping documents on May 7, 2013, and paid USD 312,750 in U.S. dollars 312,750 in U.S. dollars on May 13, 2013.

C. (1) On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff received underwater exploration devices from the Defendant and conducted an inspection and examination on four occasions as follows, but all failed to pass the examination on the grounds of defects. (2) As a result of the examination conducted from June 3, 2013 to June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff failed to pass the examination. (3) As a result of the technical examination, the Plaintiff was found to have failed to pass the examination on the following grounds: (a) the documents and components of the underwater exploration devices delivered by the Defendant are partly insufficient; and (b) the Plaintiff was found to have failed to pass the examination due to the lack of identification performance of the monitoring devices, and the failure of pressure testing, etc.

On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the same content and notified the Defendant to re-delivery.

3. The defendant delivered to the plaintiff on October 14, 2013, the underwater exploring machine re-delivery to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is classified by the payload equipment.