1. From September 11, 2018 to February 201, 2018, the Plaintiff (a consolidated counter-defendant) against the Defendant (a consolidated counter-Plaintiff) as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 21,502,00,000.

A principal lawsuit and a consolidation and counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the supply of machinery (hereinafter “instant mechanical supply contract”) with the following content, by providing the Defendant with “EPS 2 SET” (hereinafter “instant machine”) to KRW 580,00,000 (value-added tax separate).

The product name of Article 1: 1 cycle 5 to 6 minutes (including a detailed statement of the cHT-6000) 2 SE [Attachment Corning Machinery see, a detailed statement of the crating machine emission sets, sets and slabs] 1 cycle 5-6 minutes (including a smoked amount of 1:1.3): A ordering person (applicant separate from value-added tax): B (Defendant) Co., Ltd. (Defendant) for the place and payment period of “A”: The “B” installed on August 20, 2015 at the factory of “A” shall be produced on the basis of the specifications and samples of “A” for the goods specified in Article 1.

Provided, That the term "B" shall be separately designed.

Article 3 "B" shall guarantee the quality of the goods specified in Article 1 for one year.

(hereinafter omitted)

B. The machinery of this case consists of machinery, cing room, primary drieder, and secondary drieder that produces the stringr panel used as ruptures by inserting smoke, light agents, etc. to the ePS (S).

C. On November 5, 2016, the Plaintiff installed the instant machine at the Defendant’s factory, issued a performance guarantee insurance policy to the Defendant. The Defendant paid all the instant machine price to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A No. 1-4 of the main lawsuit, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit and the joint counterclaim

A. On December 28, 2016 and January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of a claim for a consolidation suit does not conflict with each other as to the fact that the Plaintiff supplied a sexually advanced valves, etc. to the Defendant, or that it did not receive a total of KRW 7,870,000, in total, after repairing a studio valves, etc. on a given date.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the above money to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.