[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The parties' assertion

A. On December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff leased a factory with Vietnam company to the Defendant on December 19, 2013. However, the Plaintiff took the form of giving part of the shares of Vietnam company to the Defendant in the form of an investment contract so that the Defendant may operate a Vietnam factory. To clarify this, USD 700,000 paid by the Defendant (hereinafter “$”).

(2) The Defendant, around November 2016, suspended the operation of a Vietnam factory. (3) On July 1, 2016, the Defendant: (1) drafted a new lease agreement on July 1, 2014; and (2) newly drafted such a provision.

If it is neglected as it causes damage to the defendant company and the plaintiff who is a shareholder of 100% of the defendant company. Thus, the plaintiff paid a direct benefit to the employees and paid a huge amount of money to operate the factory.

3) The Defendant suspended the operation of a factory, and the cause for termination of the contract stipulated in paragraph (8) occurred. On November 15, 2016, the lease contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the contract to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant should return the shares of Vietnam Company that the Plaintiff received to the Plaintiff as a result of the termination of the lease contract.

B. Defendant 1) is not a leased plant of Vietnam. The Defendant invested in Vietnam company to operate a factory and distribute profits therefrom to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, USD 700,000 that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is a full investment amount. 2) To demand the return of shares to the Defendant, the Plaintiff must return USD 700,000 to the Defendant.

3. Facts of recognition.

A. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Vietnam.