1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to produce a set and to develop an excessive period.

First of all, when the defendant pays the price, he would make the flag at the plaintiff's request and deliver it two weeks later.

Accordingly, on April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted 2,600,000 won to the Defendant.

After two months, the defendant needs sample of film and excessive film used by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff sent film and excessive samples to the defendant.

The defendant did not deliver the goods after the lapse of 5 months, and the product has been completed, thus sending it to the door-to-door.

The plaintiff directly and directly operated the defendant and it does not need to run the trial before the plaintiff viewed as the plaintiff, but the defendant did not have any goods.

On March 18, 2016, the defendant visited the plaintiff's office that he installed a set of equipment, but after connecting all of them, the program was landed on the computer of the plaintiff's staff, and the program was immediately abandoned without any year.

Franchis are different from those desired by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff also paid excessive development costs to the defendant, but the defendant did not bring about excessive development at the time of the installation of a flive season, and was prepared only at the time of preparation, and did not flive up to the prepared excessive speed.

Therefore, the plaintiff claims the return of the above KRW 2,600,000 to the defendant.

B. Although the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had to provide the Defendant with film materials capable of printing the test of the film, the time was delayed to find the Defendant’s direct and adequate film materials.

The plaintiff notified the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also understood this.

The defendant produced a special material with films and processed in a different paper, conducted an output test, and tried to send a printing machine and an output sample to the plaintiff as a selective distribution. However, the plaintiff is willing to do so.