1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 58,595,865 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from February 10, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Facts recognized;

A. The Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor is a corporation that produces and sells cement, the Plaintiff sells cement, and the Defendant is a corporation that manufactures container slots and container mortars and assembly materials.

B. On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to supply cement produced by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to the Defendant, and accordingly, supplied cement of the moldland (hereinafter “ordinary cement”) to the Defendant from that time.

C. However, around May 2013, the Defendant was supplied with low-speed cement from the two-use basic materials of Korea without being supplied with ordinary cements by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff was introduced from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and accordingly, was supplied with low-generating cements from June 18, 2013.

However, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,872,061 (including value-added tax) for cement (including value-added tax), 25,723,804 (including value-added tax) for February 2014, on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s product, such as container slurries, produced using cement supplied by the Plaintiff, has a problem such as gold dust dust from concrete products, etc.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 4, Gap's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the principal claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the cement price of KRW 58,595,865 (the price of KRW 32,872,061 on January 2, 2014, KRW 25,723,804 on February 2, 2014), and damages for delay.

3. Determination on the counterclaim and the counterclaim of set-off

A. The summary of the defendant's assertion is that "the defendant did not explain in advance the special life conditions of cement cement, which was defective in the heat cement of the plaintiff's assistant intervenor supplied by the plaintiff, or the plaintiff did not have a sufficient explanation to the defendant that the production temperature of the plaintiff should exceed an average of 65 cc."