1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s delivery of the original unit to the Defendant by April 28, 2007, and the Defendant’s delivery of the original unit did not receive the payment from the Defendant, and on April 28, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant regarding the settlement of obligations arising from the original transaction of the non-party company (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Agreement Party A: The Agreement Agreement Party E: A (Resident Registration Number F) The above Agreement and B agree to implement the following contents:

1. Debt amount for Party B: 92 million won;

2. Amount of acquisition of a Vietnam factory and office building owned by A: 45 million won (a factory product and a house).

3. A shall pay 20 million won to B at the time of transfer of the Vietnam factory and office.

4. Eul shall pay 45 million won to Gap as the acquisition fee for a Vietnam factory.

5. 1/2 of the product price shall be paid to A when B purchases products to B, and 1/2 of the product price shall be deducted from A until the amount of credit is paid in full.

* Balance remaining after deduction: 72 million won

C. The Plaintiff acquired the Defendant’s Vietnam factory and office as agreed upon after the instant agreement, and purchased trading materials from the Defendant from around 2007 to March 19, 2010, and produced and sold products such as liquid, etc. at the Vietnam factory.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and D (the representative director of the Defendant) seeking the payment of KRW 41,389,411 as the unpaid amount pursuant to the instant agreement (hereinafter “pre-appeal”) with the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2014Kadan4506, and the claim for the agreed amount (hereinafter “pre-appeal”) was concluded on December 23, 2014 by withdrawing the lawsuit against the Defendant during the litigation. On January 16, 2015, the obligor of the instant agreed amount claim was not D but the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment against the Defendant on the ground that the obligor of the instant agreed amount claim was not D.

The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, but the appellate court also dismissed the plaintiff for the same reason as the court of first instance.