2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On November 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant with the content that construction work at solar power plants located in Kim Jong-si D is KRW 320,000,000 [25,000,000,000 (25,000,000,000,000,000 for the commencement payment, and the progress payment, KRW 50,000,00 for the remainder payment, and KRW 220,00,00,000 for the remainder payment, from among the contract payment]. After the commencement of the construction, the Plaintiffs concluded the construction contract with the content that the construction work at solar power plants located in Kim Jong-si D is contracted within four months after the commencement of the construction.

B. On December 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 25,000,00 to the Defendant.

C. Of the instant contract, Articles 2(6) and 3 of the Special Conditions for the Construction Contract set forth that the Defendant will take charge of the construction permit (local government and Korean power related) business.

On the other hand, Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Special Conditions for the Construction Contract set forth that the Plaintiffs should not interfere with the progress of the Defendant’s construction work when a civil petition is filed during the construction work, and that the liability for the issue of extension of construction period and the cause of design modification arising from the occurrence of a civil petition

The Plaintiffs obtained from Kim Jong-si on October 16, 2017 a license for the power generation business as of October 16, 2020 with respect to the above solar power plant as of October 16, 2020.

In addition, on November 14, 2017, the Plaintiffs received each business registration certificate for solar power generation from the Dolsan Tax Office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion does not run entirely after the conclusion of the contract in this case. Since the defendant decided to take charge of the construction permit and permission work in this case, the defendant decided to return the down payment of KRW 25,000,000 in the event that the authorization and permission is not granted, the contract in this case is terminated by the delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case, and the defendant claims the return of KRW 25,000,000 to the defendant.

3. The procedure for authorization and permission of the instant construction has occurred, etc.