1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 81,696,968 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 7, 2015 to August 17, 2016.

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed the facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells food additives, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells food additives, etc.

B. From April 1, 2014, to May 14, 2014, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the field mining X-ray products (hereinafter “food materials”).

C. However, the Defendant was investigated under suspicion of violating the Food Sanitation Act, such as manufacturing, distributing, storing, selling, etc. of unauthorized foods. During that process, the Defendant’s representative was convicted of the charges of manufacturing, distributing, etc. unauthorized foods on December 9, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

The defendant's representative stated to the effect that food materials manufactured in violation of the Food Sanitation Act, such as products with expiration of distribution period, were supplied to the plaintiff during the investigation process.

E. Around July 2014, the health authority ordered the Plaintiff to dispose of finished products using the Defendant’s food ingredients on the basis of the investigation results. On May 7, 2015, after the judgment on the Defendant’s representative became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff entirely discarded the finished products (i.e., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g.,

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1, 3 (including abnormal numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition 1), the plaintiff suffered losses from the disposal of finished products due to the supply of food ingredients in violation of laws and regulations by the defendant, and the defendant is liable for damages due to nonperformance or tort against the plaintiff. 2) The defendant asserts that the defendant is not liable for damages since the plaintiff could prevent the destruction of food if he had sufficiently confirmed the result of the criminal case judgment against the defendant's representative and properly responded to the measures taken by the health authorities.

In other words,