1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay 35,050,000 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its full payment from October 26, 2017.

1. From December 29, 2014 to August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff (mutually: C) supplied the Defendant (mutually: D) with the wing wing product, a sports apparatus, to the Defendant. On December 31, 2016, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff unpaid goods costs of KRW 70 million out of KRW 150,000,00,000 for the wing wing products, including 1.5050,000 for the wing wing products, supplied to the Defendant. Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant, barring any dispute between the parties, or is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid goods costs of KRW 350,5050,000,00,000 for the KRW 50,000,000,00 for the 150,000,000 for the wing wing product.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense and counterclaim

A. On December 31, 2016, the Defendant produced 5,00 goods supplied by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff and supplied them to the IMT Global. The Defendant asserted that the damage was caused by the 127,500,000 goods cost for the STM finished 3,000 supply goods (3,50 won for the Defendant’s MST Global supply x 3,000 goods x 3,000 goods) due to the power source strength and the defect in the durability of the wing process. The Defendant claimed that the above damage claim against the Plaintiff was offset by the price for the above goods as the damage claim against the Plaintiff and sought compensation for the said damage.

B. When the Plaintiff intends to have any defect in the supplied goods, the supplied goods must have any structural and functional defect different from the contents stipulated in the contract, or the goods must have the quality ordinarily required in light of the transaction concept.

However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant on December 31, 2016, solely based on the written evidence Nos. 3 and 4, had the foregoing defect, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of each of the written evidence Nos. 5-8, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.