1. The defendant shall pay 83,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 5, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

1. The facts constituting the ground for the application in the separate sheet as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the following purport of the argument as a whole: Gap 1 to 17 evidence (including each number); Eul - witness testimony; and the fact inquiry as to the trial performance report by this court.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the defense of the settlement agreement, the Defendant’s assertion approved the issuance of the Defendant’s Myner’s tax invoice, and paid taxes accordingly.

In addition, the defendant received buffer production machinery (Pper Heone Lonecombre and Gaminmintic Machine: Madelcom 1800-dexe, product name under the sales contract: Wnelcom 1800-dexe, product name under the sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant machinery”), and received full payment for the relevant case, and received the return of the instant machinery.

In other words, 44,00,000 won out of the refund on the day of return of the instant machine shall be deducted from the purchase price separately planned by the Plaintiff, and the remaining 301,00,000 won in the instant machine shall be remitted to transfer the remainder of 451,00,000 won in total, and then the machinery was returned.

However, notwithstanding the issuance of the Masp Tax Invoice as of November 14, 2012 before the return of the instant machinery, the Plaintiff permitted the Defendant to dismantle and return the instant machinery, and also purchased part of the instant machinery at KRW 44,00,000 (including surtax) separately.

(A) The Plaintiff, after confirming the payment on the day of the return of the machinery, allowed the full return of the machinery temporarily interrupted. It cannot be said that prior to that, all kinds of claims and liabilities related to the return of the machinery of this case, impliedly accepted that the settlement of accounts was completed.

(2) We examine the judgment, and the above circumstances and the evidence required by the defendant alone are insufficient to recognize the defendant's above assertion.