1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 50,400,000 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related thereto, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from July 16, 2014 to May 1, 2015.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating C in the wholesale business of mechanical equipment, and the Defendant is a company operating the manufacturing business of electronic equipment and machinery.

B. In February 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to purchase two Radryer machines, which are used in the production of a printed circuit board of Handphone (PCB) by the Defendant, from the early February 2013.

Accordingly, on May 10, 2013, between the Defendant and the i-TNS Co., Ltd. located in Japan (hereinafter “one company”), the Defendant is a “each of the instant machinery” in combination with CO2 L-2G212, a model name L-2G212, a model name L-C-2G212, and one of the machinery (detailed product L-2G212/C) in question of the Plaintiff as follows.

[3] The Plaintiff purchased each of the above machinery and sold it to the Plaintiff

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s agreement regarding the purchase of each of the instant machinery (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

From May 31, 2013 to June 22, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 126,00,000,000, out of the purchase price of each of the instant machinery, and paid KRW 25,229,855, out of the customs clearance cost of each of the instant machinery.

The Plaintiff received delivery of each of the instant machines from the Defendant during July 2013, and then sold the said machines again to Nonparty D.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Of the two machinery purchased by the Plaintiff from the Defendant, it is impossible to install one of the two machinery purchased by the Plaintiff from the Defendant in Korea, and even if installed, it is impossible to use the machinery because there is no product that can be processed by the said machinery in Korea. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact, sold the said machinery to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is against the above machinery 1 unit.