1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,251,650 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from February 27, 2013 to November 29, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From November 10, 201 to May 2012, the Plaintiff leased temporary materials to the Defendant, as described in attached Form 1, as well as the details of lease of temporary materials.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff spent the transport cost agreed to be borne by the Defendant while leasing the temporary materials to the Defendant as shown in the attached Form 2.

C. The Defendant did not return to the Plaintiff the temporary materials indicated in the amount of compensation for the non-repaid materials that the Plaintiff leased from the Plaintiff as above. The Plaintiff’s loss resulting therefrom is as indicated in the “amount of loss” column 3 of the above attached Table 3.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to 27,251,650 won (21,265,050 won for transportation of household materials) and the amount equivalent to 27,251,650 won for transport of household materials (5,736,600 won for household materials compensation of non-paid materials of KRW 250,00) and the amount equivalent to 5,736,600 for the Defendant’s delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Defendant from February 27, 2013 to November 29, 2013, which is reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation, from February 27, 2013 to November 29, 2013, the amount equivalent to 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is

On the other hand, in addition to the above recognized amount, the plaintiff asserts that additional amount of 37,152,26 won for material rent, 420,000 won for transportation, and compensation amount of 28,000 won for non-paid materials, and sought payment from the defendant. However, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and Gap evidence Nos. 5 (detailed statement on daily admission except for acceptance certificates) are unilaterally prepared by the plaintiff, and the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is eventually within the scope of the above recognition.