1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from June 24, 2014 to November 17, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of co-mixing and processing, etc. with the trade name of “C” in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures heating equipment and solar heating, etc. for home use, such as Stoves.

B. On April 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply the Defendant with each other (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with each other for the mixing processing of part of the parts of the stoves and tubes produced and sold by the Defendant (A, B) and the stoves.

C. From the beginning of April 2013 to October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the following: (a) the burning room of the wind stoves, the burning room of the stoves, and the part used in the heat exchange tubes; (b) the pipe-type stoves with general paints (hereinafter “instant hosting work”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the price of supply equivalent to KRW 18,250,100 was generated as the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant under the instant hosting work contract. The Defendant paid only KRW 7,332,000 as the price.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay 10,918,100 won (=18,250,100 won - 7,332,000 won) to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to do the instant co-rating work by using the internal heat rate of which the heat resistance level is maintained up to 800 cc. In the instant co-rating work contract, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the general paint of which the heat resistance level is only 300 cc.

As a result, in the stoves manufactured and sold by the Defendant using the above parts supplied by the Plaintiff, malodor was generated while the Defendant was in operation, and the agent and the consumer requested return, and the refund was made.