2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On July 4, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a program development service agreement (hereinafter “instant development agreement”) with the Defendant with the content that, if the Plaintiff pays KRW 30 million to the Defendant, the Defendant would produce and supply the web-based financial accounting program that can be used by childcare centers and kindergartens (hereinafter “instant program”) until November 1, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 15 million on July 13, 2017, KRW 7 million on October 18, 2017, and KRW 30.8 million on November 1, 2017, and paid the amount of KRW 30.8 million on November 1, 2017, and did not dispute the fact that the amount of the service price actually received under the instant development agreement was 30.8 million on the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, according to the instant development agreement.

A. The payment was made.

C. By February 28, 2018, the Defendant failed to complete the instant program development even until February 14, 2018, and the Plaintiff’s representative director C cancelled the instant development contract on the grounds of delay in performance to the Defendant on February 14, 2018, and accordingly, returned KRW 30,80,000 as service payment to the original state until February 28, 2018 (Evidence A No. 4) to the Defendant by content-certified mail.

At that time, the above document reached the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant development agreement was concluded by October 31, 2017, and agreed to complete a system transplantation, but did not delay the delivery of the instant program, notwithstanding the agreement to complete the testing.

Accordingly, the plaintiff cancelled the development contract of this case on February 14, 2018 on the ground of delay in the performance of the development contract of this case. The defendant, due to restitution, paid 308 million won to the plaintiff as the service price and its corresponding amount.