1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 38,047.

A. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant can claim the distribution of residual property, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, due to lack of assertion or proof as to whether to grant or not, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part of the settlement amount is rejected without examining any further.

* If the primary partnership with the Defendant was destroyed as the Plaintiff asserted, and the trust with the Defendant was significantly damaged, it would be a common response to the Plaintiff’s failure to request the Defendant to return the respective investment amount, i.e., to the Defendant at the same time, and not to make a transaction with the Defendant.

* However, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of first-wave diagnostic equipment on December 18, 2013 with the Defendant after the destruction of the first club business, and paid a down payment equivalent to KRW 22 million to the Defendant, and entered into a second club business on April 18, 2017, and continued to maintain the transaction relationship with the Defendant by entering into the third club business contract around February 2018.

* Furthermore, on November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of KRW 22,00,000,000 as a result of the termination of the supply contract as of December 18, 2013 (U.S. District Court Sungnam Branch Branch 2014dan3728). As such, in the pertinent litigation procedure, the Plaintiff could have claimed a claim for the return of investment deposit following the destruction of the first club business in question, not only was the Defendant and the second club business agreed on February 21, 2018, but also did not make such attempt at all, even if the Plaintiff could have easily recovered the investment deposit by the method of calculating the settlement amount by reflecting the investment amount of the first club business.

* Around June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff refused to pay the settlement of accounts to the Defendant, first mentioning the amount of KRW 20 million paid to the Defendant at the time of the first club business, only when the Plaintiff was requested by the Defendant to pay the settlement of accounts for the third club business.

* Meanwhile, the Defendant delivers to the Plaintiff all of the equipment produced by the Defendant for the primary business.