2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a pentry located in the Sim-si, and the Defendant (Seoul Energy Co., Ltd.) is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing solar facilities and wholesale and retailing.

B. On October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a contract for each of the following (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”) with the Defendant for the instant installation works (60kW) and D expansion works (hereinafter “each of the instant construction works”).

The date of commencement and completion of the construction project name C Construction (including value-added tax) of KRW 133,320,000 (including value-added tax) of the construction project cost of 133,320,000 (including 60kW) of the construction project, shall be October 2015: 6,985,000 won of the down payment of KRW 20 million on October 2015;

C. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 27 million to the Defendant as a down payment, etc. under each of the instant contracts.

The Defendant did not start each of the instant construction works until October 2015, which is the starting date stipulated in each of the instant contracts, and on July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “if the Defendant did not start each of the instant construction works by July 25, 2017, the Defendant shall be deemed to have no intention to maintain each of the instant contracts and shall commence the legal procedure, such as return of unjust enrichment,” and at that time, the said certificate of content reaches the Defendant.

Although the Defendant obtained the above content certification from the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not start each of the construction of this case until now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the above determination, the defendant delayed the performance of the obligation to start each of the construction of this case in accordance with each of the contract of this case, and the plaintiff did not perform the obligation despite the defendant's demand to perform the obligation set for a considerable period of time with the content certification of July 10, 2017. Thus, the plaintiff may rescind each of the contract of this case.

Therefore, it is true.