1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from January 30, 2016 to January 10, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts constituting the premise of the dispute

A. On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff, who was acting for the management of C facilities in public cities, reported the problems of the drying machine located in C facilities in public cities, and was approved temporarily from public cities on June 26, 2012 that the Plaintiff provided within C facilities from public cities (80% of the number of slurbling seasons).

B. The Plaintiff was in need of removing malodor generated in the course of the construction of slots, and prepared a business cooperation memorandum (Evidence A 2; hereinafter “instant memorandum of Understanding”) with the Defendant who manufactures the seizer for the purpose of developing technology.

C. During the period from June 27, 2012 to March 29, 2013, the Plaintiff started to operate the high temperature level dried up by the Plaintiff in the public-private partnership C facilities, and the seizure facilities provided by the Defendant.

However, on June 19, 2013, the official city requested the removal of the above facilities, and the plaintiff removed the facilities around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, fact inquiry results on the public market in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the said high-tension bell dried (including ancillary facilities; (b) to the Defendant at KRW 150 million (within seven days after the contract amounting to KRW 50 million, and within thirty months after the contract amounting to KRW 100 million) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (c) around that time, the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant drying machine to the Defendant can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant drying machine to the Defendant; or (c) the purport of the entire entries and arguments as stated in the evidence No. 1 and 4.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining purchase price of KRW 100 million and damages for delay.

3. Determination on the defense and counterclaim claim

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant sales contract, set up the instant construction machine from the Defendant.