1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) owns KRW 56,732,700 and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from February 1, 2014.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around August 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a low temperature storage contract (hereinafter “instant storage contract”) with the Defendant to keep capital reduction of 829,660 g (38,000 g) owned by the Plaintiff at a warehouse of 529 3,4,6,7, and 8 (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) as storage fees for up to December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a storage contract with the Defendant for each of 2,00 g 30 g 20 g 20 g 20 per each month from the following year to December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant warehouse”). The specific details are as follows.

Article 5 (Quality Control) (1) The plaintiff shall take necessary measures, such as quality inspections, from time to time, in cooperation with the defendant to maintain the stability of the quantity in storage or to prevent damage.

(2) The defendant shall have a technician in charge engage thoroughly in all technical affairs so as not to impede the maintenance of proper temperature in low temperature facilities during the storage of quantities.

Article 6 (Liability for Accidents) (1) All damages arising from the failure to comply with each of the above provisions and the suffering of defective goods belongs to the Plaintiff’s responsibility, and the damages arising from the defect of a low temperature device and the fire shall be liable to the extent that the Defendant confirms the extent of the damages.

However, in the case of natural disasters (the market price at the place of shipment in the case of storage fees). 3 The defendant's storage goods are likely to be deteriorated as a result of occasional inspection, and the plaintiff's pet delivery, the owner of the goods, notified the delivery of the plaintiff's pet, and all the damage liabilities

4. The plaintiff may not transfer his liability to the defendant for any damage inflicted on the goods released from the warehouse.

B. By August 23, 2012, pursuant to the instant warehouse storage contract, the Plaintiff entered capital reduction of 864,100kg (a ton 1,323) in the Defendant’s warehouse (hereinafter “instant capital reduction”). Of the instant warehouse, the Plaintiff entered the warehouse of 6,768km 6 and 8, respectively.