1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff Company entered into a C-related agreement with the Defendant Association with a two-year contract period (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. The instant agreement states that C products and construction technology and know-how, which the Plaintiff introduced from the U.S. company, shall be completed by the members and project participants of the Defendant Association, and the Defendant Association shall recruit agents or total sales offices with marketing strategies and know-hows, and the Plaintiff shall support the Defendant Association with the amount of KRW 150 million, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall divide the net income accrued from this business into KRW 50:50.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000,000 to the Defendant on the date of contract.

【In the absence of any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the project could no longer proceed due to the destruction of the contract between the U.S. and the Defendant Association while the Plaintiff Company promoted the instant agreement with the Defendant Association.

On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff terminated the agreement by sending a certificate of content to the Defendant Association and requested the return of the contribution.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the contributions and delay damages.

3. Determination

A. The circumstance that the U.S. company asserted by the Plaintiff reversed the contract with the Plaintiff does not stipulate that the Plaintiff may unilaterally terminate the instant agreement on the ground of the fact that the Plaintiff may unilaterally terminate the agreement, notwithstanding any provision of the instant agreement (Evidence A (Evidence A (1)).

B. Even if the U.S. company reverses the contract with the Plaintiff due to the circumstances for which it is difficult for the Plaintiff to continue to maintain the contract under the good faith principle, considering the respective descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 9 and 35, the Defendant appears to have prepared business by inserting considerable money for the implementation of the instant agreement.