2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On November 5, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with Nonparty D, a shareholder of Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to acquire shares of KRW 1,500 (hereinafter “instant contract”). On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to acquire shares of KRW 715,00,00,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The instant contract included the proviso clause stating that “if the Plaintiff wishes to pay the principal and statutory interest to the Plaintiff immediately, the Defendant shall pay the principal and statutory interest to the Plaintiff in the event the problem occurs or the scheduled project does not proceed during the construction of the term contract, or due to any other reason” (hereinafter “instant proviso clause”).

C. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant as the down payment under the instant contract, and in addition, remitted KRW 7 million on November 25, 2014, and KRW 600,000 on August 10, 2015 to the Defendant, respectively.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, entry of Eul evidence 2 through 4, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties' assertion (1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obliged to pay 27.6 million won and damages for delay paid to the plaintiff as share transfer price according to the contract of this case according to the following selective claims.

① Since the Defendant was unable to perform his/her duty to transfer shares under the instant contract because it was impossible for him/her to obtain shares from D, the instant contract shall be terminated due to nonperformance, and the Defendant shall return the price received as restitution.

② The scheduled project stipulated in the proviso of this case refers to the investment of UAE, but the project was not implemented properly. Therefore, the Defendant received the price pursuant to the proviso of this case.