1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2013, Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (formerly, Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the Nonparty Company would provide the Defendant with goods of machinery and equipment and pay subsidies (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired part of the claim for the return of subsidies from the non-party company to the Defendant following the rescission of the instant contract from the non-party company, and the non-party company notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3 and Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the non-party company paid subsidies to the Defendant at the time of the contract of this case, and as the contract of this case was reversed thereafter, the Defendant was liable to return KRW 30,000,000 to the non-party company.

The Plaintiff acquired the claim for the refund of the subsidies from the Defendant by the Nonparty Company to the Defendant, which is the remainder of KRW 12,630,000,000, excluding the portion of the subsidies already returned from the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 12,630,000

B. Since the defendant denies the receipt of the subsidy from the non-party company, it examines whether the plaintiff's claim for the return of the subsidy exists.

As a major evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is a letter of fact (Evidence A4) in the name of the former representative director D and a contract in which the non-party company should pay the Defendant a subsidy of KRW 60,000,000 (Evidence A1) to the Defendant at the time of the contract of this case, and the fact-finding confirmation (Evidence A4) in the name of the former representative director D, that the Defendant still has a claim for the refund of KRW 12,630,00

However, it is recognized that subsidies were paid between the non-party company and the defendant at the time of the instant contract.