1. Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant): (a) 44,846,489 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from August 11, 2016 to September 22, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who was a fraudulent party, provided funds necessary to operate a mobile phone sales store (trade name: D; hereinafter “instant sales store”) in the Sungsung City.

B. On February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 46,800,000 to the Defendant. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff as the lessee, and subsequently, the Plaintiff set the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000, KRW 2,500,000, KRW 2,500,000, and the lease period of KRW 28, 2015, and appropriated the lease deposit with the money paid by the said Plaintiff.

C. On March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff registered the instant sales store under its own name; opened an account necessary for the operation of the said sales store in the Plaintiff’s name; and transferred KRW 30,000,000 to the said account on April 9, 2013.

The defendant paid the above money to E-owner of the sales store of this case as premium.

For the operation of the sales store of this case, the Plaintiff issued the NAC under the name of the Plaintiff, and issued its foreign exchange card and Samsung Card to the Defendant.

The Defendant paid the use fee of the above credit cards (hereinafter “the instant credit cards”).

E. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to present to the end of October, 2014 materials by which it is possible to grasp the current status of the sales store operation of the instant case, as the Plaintiff’s father-child F and the Defendant caused the infertility between F and the Defendant, and that the Defendant only provided the operation of the said sales store in response thereto.

Since then, until February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff operated the said sales store with G and H, his/her father, whose lease contract for the instant sales store expires.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 5 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The defendant's judgment on the previous defense of the merits did not cause the plaintiff to take advantage of the favorable position in the above lawsuit as the F, his/her dependent, is proceeding with the defendant in a divorce lawsuit.