1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s obligation to pay the price for the goods arising from the transaction of goods, such as an Ansan test, etc.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. On July 18, 201, C and D entered into a joint operation agreement containing the same content as shown in the attached Form 1, in which, on the Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu E and 1st floor, the trade name “F” (hereinafter “instant inner location”) is jointly operated and distributed half of profits.

C and D entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the same content as indicated in the attached Form (2) with respect to medical technicians, etc., with an optician license on August 23, 2011, which is opticians who are able to operate opticians in accordance with the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, thereby entrusting the Plaintiff with the affairs concerning the operation

In accordance with the delegation agreement, on August 23, 201, the Plaintiff opened the instant explanatory point and registered its business under his/her own name, and operated the instant explanatory point, and the business registration is maintained in the name of the Plaintiff until now.

From August 201 to June 25, 2014, the Defendant supplied the instant goods with a warning and glass, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”), based on June 25, 2014, the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the goods was KRW 290,794,967.

On February 13, 2015, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Plaintiff paid KRW 165,532,920 to the Defendant as the price for the instant goods.

The defendant appropriated this to the principal of the goods price.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, 18, Eul Nos. 5 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant of the goods supply contract of this case claimed that "the actual operating entity of the instant safe store is "C and D," and the plaintiff is only a person who lends his name to him." Based on such argument, the defendant filed a lawsuit against D as "C and D jointly and severally liable for the payment of the goods price to the defendant" under the court 2014Gahap579150. However, in this case, the plaintiff asserted that he is the party to the transaction and raised that he is the party to the transaction.