2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The pertinent Plaintiff of the parties is a person engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as scrap iron, with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a company that manufactures, supplies, and sells electrical industrial machinery and devices.

D is a person who actually runs the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “F”) in the south of Defendant E’s representative director.

B. On April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff signed a sales contract between the Plaintiff and G for the right to remove scrap metal.

B) As between D and D, who is entrusted with the use of G’s corporate sense and H’s personal forum by the actual operator of H, sold the right to remove scrap metal arising from the Defendant’s Chungcheong Factory to the Plaintiff at the Defendant’s Seoul Office, and drafted a sales contract with the content that the deposit amount of KRW 300 million is paid to G (hereinafter “the sales contract for the right to remove scrap metal”).

(2) The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 300 million on April 29, 2015 to G’s account, and KRW 300 million on April 30, 2015 following the following day.

C. On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff and D entered into a scrap metal sales contract between the Plaintiff and D, and the Defendant entered into a scrap metal sales contract under the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the deposit amount of KRW 300 million paid by the Plaintiff in G, where the Defendant sold the scrap metal arising from the Defendant’s factory at the Defendant’s Seoul Office.

(3) The witness H’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, of the following facts: (a) the sales contract for the scrap metal (hereinafter “this case’s scrap metal sales contract”); (b) there is no dispute over a part of the grounds for recognition; (c) the evidence as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 5

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the contract of the instant scrap metal sales was concluded between the Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant, the Defendant did not remove the instant scrap metal to the Plaintiff to the effect that the time of removal of the scrap metal under the instant contract of the scrap metal sales was passed. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s contract of the instant scrap metal sales was revoked on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.