B. On December 30, 2013, the above D concluded an agreement with the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with the facilities owned by the Defendant, and to jointly operate the waste cable and the waste transformer recycling business using the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter the instant agreement).

C. On December 30, 2013, the Defendant deposited KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff under the name of the deposit for the implementation of the instant agreement.

The Defendants subsequently rescinded the agreement of this case on the grounds of the difficulties in the process of obtaining authorization and permission and the lack of feasibility.

E. On April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff returned to the Defendant only KRW 200,000,000 out of the deposit money, and the remainder KRW 100,000,000 was not returned.

F. The Defendant applied for a payment order seeking payment of KRW 100,000,000 as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016 tea4308, and received a decision of acceptance on February 4, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the payment order of this case). 【The ground for recognition of Gap's 3-1 to 6, each entry of Gap's 12, witness D, E's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant agreed to issue a tax invoice for KRW 100,000,000 out of the deposit amount of KRW 300,000,000 and handle it as expenses. As such, the Defendant’s claim for the refund of KRW 100,000,000 against the payment order of this case is without merit, and thus, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be

B. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree to waive the return of KRW 100,000,000 in the course of the termination of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the said money to the Defendant.

C. In full view of the witness E and D’s testimony in this court and Gap evidence Nos. 8, the plaintiff and the defendant are in the process of cancelling the agreement of this case.