2. The costs of litigation incurred by the principal lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A. Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion to cancel the contract (1) concluded a cart manufacturing contract with the Defendant and paid KRW 40,376,500 from October 31, 2013 to May 23, 2013.

However, the defendant did not deliver within the deadline.

Therefore, since the plaintiff notified the rescission of the contract on July 3, 2014, the contract was lawfully rescinded.

(2) From the Plaintiff’s standpoint, the Plaintiff could feel that the period of preparation for the production of the carart was long.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant adjusted the cart to adjust the cart schedule, etc.; (b) the Defendant did not engage in the Defendant’s specialized area; and (c) the Defendant created machinery to manufacture the cart and required to run gold-type business; (b) the Defendant supplied 70 cart to the Plaintiff; (c) there was no evidence that the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the time limit for cart production and the manufacturing quantity from the beginning; (d) even though the Plaintiff concluded a contract for the cart production on June 24, 2014 with the Defendant, it was supplied 2000,000,0000,000,000 won. However, it was due to the Plaintiff’s failure to repeat many enforcement mistakes that the Plaintiff had been under joint development with the Defendant (i.e., the Plaintiff requested simple production, but it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was a mere production in consideration of the fact that the Defendant also designed to do so).

Therefore, since the rescission of a contract by the plaintiff is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim for restitution based on the premise that the rescission of contract is lawful cannot be accepted.

B. The Plaintiff asserts and determine the return of the loan.