1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7.

(1) On May 30, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for manufacturing and installing professional pen-processing machinery (hereinafter “instant contract”) at KRW 21,00,000 (hereinafter “instant machinery”), and the Defendant completed the installation of the said machinery within 70 days from the date of the contract, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,500,000, the down payment of KRW 7,000,000 on the date of the contract (on the actual basis, the down payment was received prior to the date of the preparation of the instant contract), the intermediate payment of KRW 6,30,000,00 after trial operation, and the remainder payment of KRW 4,20,00 after trial operation, was confirmed that there was no fault of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not return the down payment to the Plaintiff where the contract is cancelled due to a cause attributable to the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for the down payment (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 10,00,000 in total, including KRW 7,000,000,000, and KRW 3,000 on July 10, 2015.

(3) On June 2015, the Defendant commenced the manufacture of the instant machinery, but suspended the manufacture of the instant machinery to a policeman on July 2016, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written agreement on July 16, 2015 with respect to the manufacture of the said machinery as follows:

On May 4, 200, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid down payment of KRW 7 million for the manufacture of the instant machinery, and completed the contract on May 30, 200. However, on June 30, the Defendant did not start the manufacture of the Plaintiff’s equipment on the ground of the manufacture of the facilities of other companies that were received at hand. Thereafter, the Plaintiff visited several companies of the Defendant every day to promote the replacement of equipment.