1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant’s primary claim 1) up to June 2012, 12 tons of a window (hereinafter “instant machinery”) is the Defendant’s primary claim.

The contract for the manufacture and installation of poppy (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff did not have the ability or intent to produce and install it within the said period.

After the conclusion of the contract, the Plaintiff acquired the price of KRW 19 million from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the tort. 2) The Defendant did not manufacture and install the instant machinery by the end of June 2012, which was the deadline for payment, and expressed its intent of refusing performance, even if the Plaintiff received any balance payment from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, since the plaintiff cancels the contract of this case on the grounds of the defendant's delay of performance or non-performance refusal, the defendant must return the price already received to the plaintiff.

B. If the instant contract is still valid, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant machine to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant contract and to install the instant machine at the same time with the payment of KRW 4 million from the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, namely, that the Defendant purchased parts necessary for the manufacture of the instant machinery from the end of June 2012 after the Defendant received part of the price from the Plaintiff and started the manufacture of the machinery from the end of June 2012, and that the present machinery of this case is completed, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant by deceiving the Plaintiff and acquired the price of KRW 19 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B. Determination 1 as to the claim for restitution following the cancellation on the ground of non-performance is completed, but the machinery of this case is still remaining.