2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 25, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed from the Defendant to purchase 393,000,000 won of the German Heavy Tracle (name: AC60-12002; hereinafter “the instant Tracle”) from the Defendant, which was a condition that the Defendant imported and sold from the German Supplier to the Plaintiff.

B. On October 25, 2014, the Plaintiff paid 39,000,000 won as down payment to the Defendant, and additionally paid on December 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion contract, the Defendant opened a letter of credit with the Defendant’s credit, and imported and delivered it to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant did not issue a letter of credit with the Defendant’s credit, and rather requested the Plaintiff to issue a letter of credit with the Plaintiff’s credit.

As such, the Defendant’s demand that the Plaintiff issue a letter of credit without having opened the letter of credit constitutes nonperformance of obligation or non-performance refusal, and thus, rescinded the instant contract by delivering a copy of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 58,950,000 won (=39,00,000 +19,950,000 won) and damages for delay paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

3. We examine whether the Defendant’s demand for the issuance of a letter of credit on the Plaintiff’s credit constitutes a default or non-performance, and if at the time of the instant contract, if the Defendant agreed to directly issue a letter of credit on the Defendant’s credit, the Defendant’s demand for the issuance of the letter of credit constitutes a default or non-performance. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to issue a letter of credit on the Defendant’s credit at the time of the instant contract with the submitted evidence alone, and it is otherwise acceptable to