1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 17,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from September 30, 2016 to May 24, 2019.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, as a siblings, established C as a corporation, and established C from around 2009, the Plaintiff, as a representative director and the Defendant, owned 1/2 shares as an inside director, and operated construction machinery entry, etc. as a partnership business.

B. On March 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to settle the construction machinery, etc. provided to the same business in proportion to equity, upon termination of a partnership relationship.

C. On the other hand, around March 4, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant truck at KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff, which the Defendant was a land owner and was affiliated with D (hereinafter “instant truck”). Around that time, the Defendant delivered the instant truck to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 18 million to the Defendant around June 4, 2015.

The defendant was found guilty of committing the following crimes and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 3 million from the Gwangju District Court for larceny (Seoul District Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 1051), and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

The Defendant delivered the instant truck to the Plaintiff on April 4, 2015, and received KRW 18 million as the vehicle price on June 4, 2015.

On September 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) transferred the instant truck possessed by the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff’s consent, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not settle the equipment cost, from G located in Gwangju Northern-gu to remove building material equipment; and (b) temporarily stolen the instant truck to H Defendant’s workplace in Gwangju Mine-gu.

E. At the time of September 2016, the market price of the instant truck is KRW 17 million.

[Based on the recognition] The evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul No. 7 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the principal claim, the defendant is equivalent to the market value of the truck of this case as compensation for damages caused by the above tort.