1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016 Ghana21316 rendered against the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the part of the claim objection

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with defective goods after the payment period. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay only the service cost of KRW 2,556,100 to the Defendant. 2) The Defendant’s assertion is KRW 7,425,90 to the Plaintiff, which was produced and supplied from March 16, 2016 to April 1, 2016.

B. As the decision on performance recommendation does not take place even after the final and conclusive decision has become final and conclusive, the restriction is not applied to a lawsuit seeking an objection against such decision based on the time limit of res judicata, and thus, in the hearing of the relevant lawsuit seeking an objection, the determination of all the claims stated in the decision on performance recommendation may be made.

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit of demurrer, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in the case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not established in the lawsuit of demurrer, the defendant is liable to prove the cause

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). The statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 10 alone is insufficient to recognize that a service price exceeding KRW 2,556,100 recognized by the Plaintiff exists, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. Judgment on the claim for payment of money

A. On March 28, 2016, the date of payment, the Defendant: (a) supplied the clothes or supplied the inferior clothes.

The plaintiff suffered losses of KRW 10,385,90 due to the defendant's violation of the due date and incomplete performance.

Furthermore, the Defendant refused to return the original parts provided by the Plaintiff and thereby interfered with the Plaintiff’s work intentionally.

The plaintiff suffered losses from 12,807,530 won.

B. The written evidence Nos. 1 through 25 alone is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted.