1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff A is the representative director of D who manufactures fishing, the plaintiff A's wife is the nominal owner in D's business registration, and the defendant is the representative director of E who manufactures the main type and gold punishment.

B. On April 26, 201, Plaintiff A entered into a contract with the Defendant to manufacture and supply gold bars of KRW 119,00,000 (value-added tax separate) (hereinafter “the instant primary contract”) with the Defendant, and concluded a contract to manufacture and supply them in the amount of KRW 22,00,000 (value-added tax separate) on October 10, 201 (hereinafter “the instant secondary contract”).

C. On April 28, 201, Plaintiff A paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 47,600,000 for the instant first contract, and KRW 35,700,000 for the intermediate payment of the instant first contract on June 24, 2011, and KRW 94,30,000 for the down payment of KRW 11,00,000 for the instant second contract on October 14, 201.

Plaintiff

On November 10, 201, A sent a content-certified mail stating the effect that the contract of this case is terminated, as there is a defect in the gold model produced under the first contract of this case to the Defendant, and as a result, there was a serious cause to make it difficult for A to perform the contract due to the delay in delivery of defective penalty.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 6 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Of the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiffs, the part claiming the return of KRW 94,300,000 that the plaintiffs paid to the defendant in relation to each contract of this case constitutes an unlawful lawsuit as it constitutes a case identical to the case of claim for the price of goods in progress, which is filed against the defendant, and thus, constitutes a overlapping lawsuit.

B. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6 and the entire pleadings, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiffs.