1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. From January 7, 2011 to May 2012, 2012, Gambling Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Daehan”) supplied products, such as Connmark (FIL) to Defendant (mutually BCOPY) and created the outstanding amount of USD 89,681.25 (hereinafter “US”) in U.S. dollars.

B. On May 2012, the Defendant: (a) returned and disposed of the products of USD 415,475.76 at the end of 2012; and (b) agreed to make installment payments as follows with respect to USD 484,205.49 ($ 89,681.25 - USD 415,475.76 at the time of offsetting the outstanding amount and the returned amount, USD 450,00 at the time of offsetting the said amount (hereinafter “instant installment repayment agreement”).

The repayment plan of USD 30,000 on June 30, 2012, USD 30,000 on July 30, 2012, USD 40,000 on August 40, 2012, USD 40,000 on September 40, 2012, USD 50,000 on October 50, 2012, USD 80,000 on November 80, 2012

C. On June 12, 2012, the Defendant offseted KRW 23,156,613 of the obligation to be paid to the Defendant by the said installment payments. On June 29, 2012, the Defendant did not pay the installment payments under the instant installment payments agreement, in addition to remitting USD 9,910.98 to the gambling place on June 29, 2012, and the Defendant did not supply the goods to the Defendant from September 2012.

On September 6, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay the unpaid amount of KRW 470,024,794 to the gambling place (hereinafter “instant payment agreement”). The Plaintiff merged the gambling place on January 1, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap witness C's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall comprehensively take over the designated goods price of KRW 470,024,794 (hereinafter "the price of the goods in this case") to the plaintiff who comprehensively succeeds to the gambling place, and this shall not apply.