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

A. On May 12, 2012, the Plaintiff, as the owner of Section C, gave a contract for the manufacture and sale of stone stones (hereinafter “instant contract”) to the Defendant, who was engaged in the manufacture and sale of stone stones in the name of D on May 12, 2012, setting the price for the production and installation of stone in KRW 57,500,000 and the period of production 60 days.

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 20 million on the day of the contract, KRW 20 million on July 5, 2012, KRW 30 million on September 27, 2012, and KRW 43 million on September 27, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s argument was that the Defendant supplied only the signboard seat and delayed the supply of it to the Plaintiff several times, and on this ground, rescinded the instant contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 3,50,000 won after deducting 9,500,000 won for the seat of the signboard from 43,00,000 won paid by the plaintiff as reinstatement.

B. (1) The fact that the Defendant supplied only the marble signboard around May 2012 and did not supply the marble until now does not have any dispute between the parties.

However, in full view of the purport of the arguments and arguments in Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 7-1 through 7, Eul evidence 10-1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 (the plaintiff asserted that the pre-public knowledge of Eul was prepared to increase the inspection transfer price, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1, 7-2, Eul evidence 8-1, 8-1, and 12, the plaintiff was made with the defendant on May 12, 2012 as a contract period of 897,890,000 won for the production and installation of the mountain, etc. and part of them, and thereafter, the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case with the defendant on July 4, 2012 as the contract price of this case, the plaintiff was made to the defendant on July 4, 201 and the production and installation work of tin and its affiliated persons and women, and the contract price of this case to the defendant on July 20, 2000.