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

A. On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive a total amount of KRW 300,000,000 for shares issued by the Defendant company and assets with management rights and tangible and intangible assets, etc. to take over the additional coffee production facilities that the Defendant operates in the Kim Sea factory, and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 50,00,000 on the following day.

B. According to a corporate transfer contract, KRW 150,00,000 of the intermediate payment is paid when verifying that the coffee production facilities are normally operated after due diligence, and the remainder amount of KRW 100,000,000 is paid until May 30, 2016. Meanwhile, if the Defendant fails to perform a contract, he/she pays KRW 900,000 as penalty and delays the payment of the intermediate payment after the intermediate payment, he/she shall be deemed to have waived all rights, including the down payment and intermediate payment.

[Grounds for recognition] No dispute, Gap 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As a result of the Plaintiff’s actual inspection of the Defendant’s Kimhae Factory after the contract, it was confirmed that there was no spawn device, which is an essential facility for coffee production, and 5 of the 10 coffee production machine, is not operated in the old form, and the remaining 5 of the 10 coffee production machine can be operated. However, the fact that only one of them is actually operated.

Therefore, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract because it is impossible to produce the additional coffees in the defendant Kimhae Factory normally. Thus, the plaintiff cancelled the contract on the grounds of the defendant's non-performance of obligation through the delivery of a complaint and sought payment of KRW 50,000,000 as part of the penalty for breach of contract with the return of KRW 50,000,000 and the compensation for damages.

B. First of all, the Defendant did not dispute the fact that the Defendant was not equipped with a cocoer in the Defendant’s additional coffee production facility, but instead, it would normally produce the cocoer in the Defendant’s additional coffee production facility.