1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applicable.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are those engaged in the manufacture of machinery, film and mutual aid, etc. under the trade name of “D”, and the Defendant is those who produce and sell scrap metal, content, etc. in the trade name of “E”.

B. On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of crops (hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of crops”) with the Plaintiffs to pay KRW 12,700,000 (excluding value-added tax) for their production and supply of 12,70,000 (hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of crops”).

C. The Defendant manufactured and supplied machinery to the Plaintiffs in relation to “F(G)” in addition to manufacturing and supplying machinery under the instant production contract.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs under the Suwon District Court Decision No. 2014 Ghana15839 against the Plaintiffs, seeking payment of KRW 10,935,000, out of the total amount of the cost of the machinery supplied until December 3, 2012, which was 29,935,000, and delay damages therefrom (the specific details of supply are the same as “the name of the goods” in attached Table 1), and the said court made a decision of performance recommendation as stated in the Defendant’s claim on June 2, 2014, which became final and conclusive as is June 25, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). . [Grounds for recognition] . [The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 3, 4, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they paid 29,935,00 won in total, which is the price under the contract for the supply of the manufactured goods of this case and the price of machinery supplied by the defendant. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision for performance recommendation of this case shall be dismissed.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is based on the contract for the supply of the instant products and the total amount of the machinery supplied to the Plaintiffs by March 1, 2013, KRW 53,619,00 (the specific supply details of the Defendant’s assertion are as shown in attached Table 2).