1. The Defendant’s KRW 157,736,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 6% per annum from December 28, 2012 to July 7, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in manufacturing business of air conditioners, freezings, etc., concluded a contract with the Defendant for the supply and installation of the same goods as indicated in the separate sheet with the Defendant.

In light of the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract, the phrase “order sheet stating the purpose of the post facto settlement” in the attached list is as shown in each case, if the plaintiff presents a written estimate, the defendant did not send a separate order, and the plaintiff supplied and installed it according to the defendant’s direction. In any case, the defendant sent to the plaintiff a written order stating “after-market agreement” or “after-market settlement” as to the plaintiff’s estimate. Accordingly, the plaintiff supplied and installed it.

The Plaintiff completed the supply and installation under each of the above contracts.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of the amount of goods as indicated in the “amount of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice” in the attached list, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff totaling KRW 1,354,457,040, such as the amount of goods as indicated in the attached list.

The defendant, while the remaining price in excess of the above payment was calculated in excess of the plaintiff's claim amount, demanded the plaintiff to settle and consult on the settlement of the price of goods. However, the plaintiff rejected the request.

C. On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff leased part of the third floor of a ground factory of 579-15, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, with the lease deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 300,000,000 per month, and the lease period from April 2, 2012 to April 1, 2013. The Defendant paid each of the above lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million and KRW 9,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

The above lease contract was terminated after the closure of business around November 27, 2012 by the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 are numbers.