1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay 10,560,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its payment from October 1, 2013.

1. On the premise, the Defendant (a company that aims at the manufacture and sales business, such as the power plant site) supplied the Plaintiff a total amount of KRW 136,482,50,00, including films (product names: 00-702 films) that were transferred to liquid crowdfunding from February 9, 2009 to November 25, 201.

From March 28, 2009 to January 19, 2012, the Plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 125,922,50 to the Defendant as the price for the goods.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff supplied C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)’s Chinese factory a product manufactured by carrying films provided by the Defendant from the Defendant on a liquid crowdfunding.

However, as a result of corrosion on the film supplied by the defendant, there was a reflection on the whole products produced by the plaintiff using the film.

As a result, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff totaling KRW 107,440,441 ( KRW 41,687,493, KRW 65,752,948) ( KRW 8,700,00, KRW 493, KRW 32,987, KRW 493, KRW 32,983, KRW 87,000) to scrap the entire quantity of the products manufactured using the film supplied by the Defendant and to manufacture and supply the new products. Moreover, C, who was supplied with the new products by the Plaintiff, has again supplied the new products to D, the final supplier, KRW 85,570,00, KRW 65,752,948, KRW 107,440, KRW 493, KRW 65,752,948, KRW 948) to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a defect, as alleged by the Plaintiff, in the film supplied by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit.

1. The evidence No. 6 of the defendant's e-mail sent to the plaintiff by E, who was an employee of the defendant, and the content is the same as that of the defendant's supply to the plaintiff if there are a large number of clouds.