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

A. The Defendant acquired from C all the claims against D including factory mortgage on the land and building owned by Nonparty D (hereinafter “D”).

B. On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a memorandum of understanding with the Defendant as follows.

E (A: Defendant, B: Plaintiff, C)

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant in accordance with the above memorandum of understanding.

On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant memorandum of Understanding and requested the Defendant to return the deposit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap-5, 14 Evidence

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment first, after the conclusion of the above MOU, the changed major shareholders and the representative director of D before the conclusion of this contract, disposed of and made no practical benefit to take over the shipbuilding yard. Since the defendant did not take any practical measures to preserve the above assets even though he has a duty of care to preserve the entire assets of D, the purpose of the MOU of this case cannot be achieved due to the defendant's fault. Accordingly, the plaintiff's cancellation on this ground is legitimate and the defendant must return the above deposit money.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the above assets were the objects of sale and purchase as stated in the MOU of this case, or the objects of factory mortgage, and there was a separate agreement to the effect that the defendant would preserve them with his own effort, if he intends to take the above assets not subject to sale and purchase as a ground for cancellation of the contract.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the evidence No. 19 and testimony No. 19 with witness F alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Next, the plaintiff includes the above assets.