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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she requested the Defendant to install a show case to the “C” in the Suwon-si District B of the Plaintiff’s operation, and transferred KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant as part of the cost of installation on that day.

However, as the Defendant did not perform its duty of delivery and installation under the above contract, the above contract was rescinded as a default, and thus, KRW 20,000,000 already paid should be returned.

If the claim for the conclusion of the above contract is not accepted in advance, the above KRW 20,000,000 should be returned as unjust enrichment since it was paid to the defendant without any legal cause.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the shock case installation contract claimed by the Plaintiff was not concluded, and KRW 20,000,000, paid from the Plaintiff, is not the contract deposit, but the Plaintiff’s representative director, and the Plaintiff’s spouse’s other claims against D and E.

2. Determination

A. According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 5-1 through 6, and evidence Nos. 6-1 through 7-7 as to claims for non-performance, the defendant issued a written estimate of total amount of KRW 224,30,000 to the plaintiff on December 9, 2013; ② the plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 20,000 to the defendant on the same day; ③ D and his/her spouse, who are the actual operators of the plaintiff company, applied for each rehabilitation procedure on March 12, 2015 with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015, 10048, 2015, 1050, and 6-1 through 7. The above court decided to commence each rehabilitation procedure on April 15, 2015; and the revised amount of claims to D and E submitted by the defendant on the rehabilitation plan with the total repayment amount of KRW 10,1000,000,300,000 each of the above claims amount were confirmed within the rehabilitation plan.