1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation shall be dismissed;

2...

1. Facts of premise;

A. Around January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff operating C, a clothing processing company, entered into a contract for replacing the existing light light (40W) from the Defendant operating D with LED lighting (1200 meters outside the consortium, maximum expendable power 22W) (hereinafter “Dispute contract”).

B. By January 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) replaced and installed approximately 194 LED lighting at the Plaintiff’s place of business by January 28, 2014 according to the key contract; (b) the consumption power at the time of installation of ED lighting has decreased from 60% to 88%; and (c) electric charges are saved (government announcements).

C. On February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff, through an installment financing agreement (375,000 won per month, 24 months) in the Plaintiff’s name, included KRW 1,620,000 of the total supply price of the said contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Unlike the facts, the Plaintiff alleged that the previous type of light, etc. has the effect of reducing electricity over 50% when the Defendant replaced the existing type of light, etc. to the PE lighting, and the Plaintiff believed and replaced it, but the Defendant did not have the effect of reducing electricity, which was established by the Defendant, even though it did not reach the existing lighting.

Ultimately, the Defendant had the Plaintiff enter into a key contract by deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby making unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 9,000,000,000 for the supply value of the key contract, and thus, should return KRW 9,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone in relation to the improvement of the assistance in finding the improvement of assistance in the development of assistance is not sufficient to deem that the assistance in the development of assistance in the development of assistance in the development of assistance in the development of assistance in the development of assistance.

C. As to the allegation on the reduction of electricity rates, the lower court stated that the consumption power is reduced by 60-88% and that the electricity rates are saved.

On the other hand, Gap evidence 6 and Eul evidence 5 are written and arguments.