1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the production cost case against the Plaintiff in Suwon District Court Decision 2015Da13418.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff, through the Defendant’s employees B, requested the Defendant to manufacture and supply the instant goods on December 17, 2014, with the production price of KRW 5.6 million (MTNNNNF-70 mp 1S-60 L 200,000 x 1.8 million), and the payment period of KRW 1.8 million (MTNNNLF-60 x 200,000,000 x 1.8 million). Accordingly, the Defendant made the instant goods and supplied them to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2014.

B. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant asserted that, in the manufacturing process of the instant goods, “the Defendant procured part of the materials that the Plaintiff would supply to the Plaintiff at the beginning, and that there was an additional work, such as reworking upon modification of the drawings,” the Defendant demanded KRW 9,280,000 as the cost of manufacturing the instant goods.

C. However, the Plaintiff demanded reduction of the manufacturing price by asserting that “the Plaintiff’s employees had additional work because of the existence of defects in the instant goods, and caused damages to the Plaintiff’s customer due to the defect.”

Accordingly, on December 30, 2014, the Defendant’s employees B, in consultation with the Plaintiff’s employees, delivered to the Plaintiff a detailed list of transactions under the Defendant’s name, stating that the production price of the instant goods was KRW 5,280,000 (i.e., the value of KRW 4,80,000,000).

However, the Plaintiff demanded the additional reduction of the production cost, and eventually agreed on the production cost of KRW 4 million between B and B on February 9, 2015, and on December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff stated “final Nego decision of KRW 4 million” in the margin of the trading specification sheet as of December 30, 2014, and signed it under B.

E. However, as the above price is not paid properly, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the cost of manufacturing the instant goods, and this court rendered a decision on the instant performance recommendation on May 14, 2015 to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 9280,000 to the Defendant and its delay damages,” and served the Plaintiff on May 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.