1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a product development service agreement with the Defendant as follows, and paid an advance of KRW 22 million to the Defendant.

o Items to be developed: 150,000 won for Category B C: 500,000 won for Category B (including additional body body) - Advance KRW 22,000: Within two days after the conclusion of the contract - Payment of KRW 16,50,000 for intermediate payment of KRW 50 days after the conclusion of the contract - Payment of KRW 16,50,000 for intermediate payment of KRW 16,50,000 for the remainder of KRW 16,50,000 for the Defendant’s intermediate payment of KRW 50,000,000 for the Defendant’s product

B. On April 10, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff data related to the production of software (hereinafter “instant data”).

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's designer suffered a traffic accident and delayed the development of the product, and only sent only the data of this case to the plaintiff without completing the development of the product within the development period.

However, it is difficult to view the instant data as the result corresponding to KRW 22 million.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rescission of the instant contract.

The defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff KRW 22 million which has already been paid to the plaintiff as restitution.

B. There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intent of rescission lawfully after the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the performance within a given period.

Even if there was a peremptory notice of performance and a declaration of intent of cancellation, the fact that the Plaintiff’s designer was not able to provide the design to the Defendant due to traffic accidents is also the Plaintiff. In light of the fact that the Defendant developed the software portion that could have been developed without design and sent the data of this case, the Defendant is in accordance with the nature of the instant contract due to its own fault.