1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 30, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for B construction from the Defendant for KRW 910,000,000 for the price, and the Plaintiff concluded a contract for construction work with the content that the Plaintiff will act on behalf of the Plaintiff and that the down payment KRW 100,000 should be paid at the time of issuance of the viewing license

B. On June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff was acting on behalf of the Plaintiff in accordance with the said contract, and the Defendant was issued a certificate of permission for the manufacture of high-pressure gas (fluorified petroleum gas filling business) and nitrogen, etc. by the original liquor market.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 5 evidence, overall purport of pleading]

2. As to the plaintiff's assertion as the cause of the claim in this case, as to claiming the payment of the down payment under the contract in this case, the defendant asserts that the contract in this case is cancelled on the ground of the plaintiff's deception, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not have the ability to execute the down payment, there are many construction experiences, and the defendant entices the defendant that he will remain a minimum profit only.

3. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 30, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is obvious that it is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint sought by the Plaintiff, as the down payment KRW 100 million under the instant contract and its subsequent issuance date of

As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that the contract of this case is revoked on the ground of deception by the plaintiff, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, the defendant asserts that it is not allowed to claim a down payment of KRW 100 million in that the benefit that the plaintiff gains when the contract of this case is implemented is merely KRW 28 million.