1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 11,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from May 5, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity with the purpose of manufacturing and installing mechanical devices, and the Defendant runs the manufacturing business, etc. of parking facilities, etc. under the trade name “B”.

B. By August 30, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract on the installation of mechanical parking machine at the aforementioned construction site at the cost of KRW 67 million (excluding value-added tax) with the head of Uwon Public Administration Co., Ltd., the Seongbuk-gu Seoul District Construction Construction Business chain.

C. Since then, around August 11, 2014, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to install a parking machine at the original manufacturing chain of the above parking machine at the time when the above parking machine was installed. Ultimately, the Defendant entered into a contract for the installation of the above parking machine (including approval for the use inspection) with the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) d.

On August 30, 2014, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 15 million out of the instant contract price, KRW 15 million on September 15, 2014, and KRW 3 million of value-added tax. The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant for the total amount of KRW 33 million.

E. The Plaintiff did not pay the balance of KRW 11 million under the instant contract, and filed a complaint against the Defendant’s husband D, the operator of “B,” who was subject to the inspection for approval of the use of the said parking machine, by unlawful means around November 2014, as fraud and violation of the Parking Lot Act. The Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office did not intend to commit fraud on March 31, 2015 in the case No. 11855 of the Punishment No. 11855, Dec. 31, 2015, and did not err in obtaining the inspection for the use of the said parking machine, thereby making a disposition of non-prosecution against

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff installed the above parking machine, the Defendant did not pay KRW 11 million out of the contract price of this case, and the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 11 million.

The defendant shall pay the price of the contract of this case 4.