A. On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to pay for the amount of KRW 57,200,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) on February 1, 2012, and paid KRW 10,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 20,000 on March 22, 2012, and KRW 27,20,000,000 for the remainder on June 30, 2012 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 30,00,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 1,00 on February 1, 2012, and KRW 30,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 20,000 on March 22, 2012.

B. However, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff pay the remainder before the payment date of the remainder, on the ground that the Plaintiff was found to have a defect in the smoke period of the instant case, and that the Defendant would not mislead the Defendant by giving an explanation about the use of the smoke period of the instant case where the Plaintiff did not comply with the request.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return KRW 30 million in total the down payment and intermediate payment, and the Defendant deposited KRW 20 million in the account in the name of the Plaintiff on April 18, 2012.

C. After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not perform any act relating to the implementation of the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the principal claim, it is reasonable to view that the instant sales contract was rescinded by an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around April 18, 2012, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to return to the Plaintiff the unclaimed KRW 10 million out of the total sum of the down payment and the intermediate payment already received to the Plaintiff due to reinstatement, barring any special circumstance.

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract was rescinded on the ground of the Defendant’s refusal of performance, but the Defendant did not sell the instant marina machine without stating detailed reasons to the Plaintiff on April 18, 2012.