1. On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 68,05,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and KRW 51,00,000 among them.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) on the Plaintiff’s supply of China-Nrang stone to be used in the new construction site B located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction site”) with the Defendant’s construction site B located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction site”). The main contents are as follows.

3. Item name: Madon B1F-1F: Madon in China, and 20 or more: Madon.

4. Delivery period: Loading from 15 days after the order is placed;

5. Contract amount: 170,934,286 won (value of supply: 155,394,805 won, value-added tax: 15,539,481 won);

6. Terms and conditions of payment 1): Cash special terms and conditions of payment 10% at the time of issuing an order (30%: 5,000,000 won), B/L issuance (50%: 85,000,000 won), prior to shipment (20%: 34,934,286 won):

1. The goods supplied shall be the same as the sample already submitted and approved;

2. Where an on-site inspector has been judged disqualified, the burden of loss incurred thereby shall be borne exclusively by B (referring to the plaintiff).

7. Conducting inspections after the arrival of the product on the spot.

(Supplyer, Field, Supervision, and City Construction)

B. On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant the final sampling of stone (hereinafter “final sampling”).

C. On June 4, 2015, the Defendant paid 51,000,000 won in advance to the Plaintiff, and 15,800,000 won equivalent to the first B/L issued on June 25, 2015, respectively.

On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the supply and inspection of the first unit of stone with its final sampling and shape and color different from those of other stone (hereinafter “instant supplied stone”). After examining on June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff determined that the instant supplied stone is inappropriate because its color and pattern are different from the sampling stone.

E. The Defendant collected the building stones of this case over four occasions on July 1, 2015, 9., 14., and 17.4, and supplied the same building stones as the samples submitted by the Plaintiff and, if not, is legally liable.