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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On July 2012, the Defendant requested that the company and the broker B sell the company and the 600 boxes for KRW 30 million, and asked that the company would purchase the above company and the broker B asked the Plaintiff to purchase the company.

B. In order to purchase the above company, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 1 million to the account in the name of the Defendant on July 7, 2012, and KRW 30 million on July 10, 2012, respectively. However, the Plaintiff was unable to be supplied with the company with the exception of the amount of KRW 4,093,600 in total and the market price of KRW 1 million, and the amount of KRW 86 in total and KRW 1 million in the market price.

C. On October 11, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that “Inasmuch as the Defendant did not perform the contract and did not have any intent to perform, it would return KRW 31 million until October 15, 2013,” the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant.

[Ground for recognition] The facts without dispute (the plaintiff alleged that the above 1 million won and the above 4,093,600 won are not provided at all after the confession was made. However, there is no evidence to prove that the confession was contrary to the truth and caused by mistake), Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including the branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, 2, and 5 (including the branch number, if not stated otherwise), the testimony of witness B of the first instance trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, a sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to supply the Plaintiff with a company equivalent to KRW 31 million (hereinafter “instant private supply contract”), and the Defendant, upon receiving the notice of performance under the above content-certified mail, did not perform obligations under the instant private supply contract. Thus, it is evident in the records that the duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the instant private supply contract due to the nonperformance of obligations, was delivered to the Defendant on November 25, 2013. Thus, the instant contract was lawfully rescinded on November 25, 2013.

(3).