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

A. The Plaintiff is an internal director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) who is engaged in manufacturing and wholesale and retail business of industrial machinery automation devices, manufacturing and wholesale and retail business of automation devices, and the Defendant is a person who has worked as the office of the head of the office at C’s Seoul Business Place located in Gwangju-si.

B. On February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) carried out the business of “inspection automation or FA automation facilities” for C for three months; and (b) C entered into an agreement with the Defendant that pre-paid KRW 10,000,000 as business personnel expenses (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

If the agreement of this case does not have any performance within three months, the agreement of this case shall be revoked through consultation and shall be refunded KRW 10,000,000.

Provided, That a separate consultation may be made on the return of KRW 10,000,000 according to the possibility of receiving orders during the business.

The term "" is written as "."

C. On February 5, 2014, pursuant to the instant agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant as an advance payment of business personnel expenses. From May 2014 to May 2015, the period of business activities (three months) stipulated in the instant agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,50,000 each month to the Defendant.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 32,500,000 to the account in the name of E, on July 11, 2014, to the account in the name of E, in relation to the equipment to examine whether electronic parts are installed as designed in the PCB (PE) as well as the equipment to examine whether the electronic parts are installed as designed.

E. The Plaintiff, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to receive business orders for C, acquired financial benefits by deceiving the Plaintiff, and even if receiving the development cost of the non-exclusive inspection program from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not have the intent or ability to develop the said program for C, and was in the name of the development cost of the program by deceiving the Plaintiff.