1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the amount of KRW 245,560,000 and the amount of KRW 245,560,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods and paid a part of the price 1) with the Defendant who produces plastic plastic plastic products using the sexual criminal withdrawn machine on September 6, 2007, with the price of 267,200,000 won (excluding value-added tax) for the Haseb B, etc., the power saving machine produced by the Plaintiff, and Haseb Co., Ltd. (hereinafter each of the above Haseb Co., Ltd) 34 (hereinafter referred to as “the power saving machine of this case”).

(A) the supply of each of the goods(hereinafter referred to as “each of the goods supply contracts of this case”) to 178,400,000 won (excluding value-added tax).

Upon entering into a contract, some of the above payments determined to be substituted by the Energy Management Corporation’s subsidies to companies using high-efficiency electric power reduction devices for the reduction of electric energy, and the remainder payment was agreed to pay the Defendant the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the electric rates saved monthly in installments. (2) The Plaintiff completed the installation of the instant electric power reduction devices during the period of sexual criminal release for the production of plastic products located in the Defendant factory on November 2007.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received a subsidy of KRW 154,830,00 from the Energy Management Corporation, and received KRW 245,560,000 out of the remainder from the Defendant during the period from February 26, 2008 to November 15, 2010. (b) The preparation of a written oath between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was conducted by the Defendant during the period of the said sexual criminal criminal procedure, and the Defendant failed to operate the said sexual criminal procedure period properly or broken out at the mother site after installing the electric reduction device during the said period of the sexual criminal procedure, and was inspected at least 60 times from March 2009 to November 201.

2. The Defendant did not enjoy the power saving effect of the instant electric power saving machine separately, while making it difficult for the Plaintiff to conduct normal business due to frequent breakdown of the said sexual criminal withdrawing machine. As such, the power saving rate of the instant electric saving machine to demand the Plaintiff to pay any balance under each of the instant goods supply contracts is the same as the Plaintiff initially asserted.