The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the sales and trade of textile textile textiles, and the Defendant is a company that engages in multiple transport arrangement business.

B. On January 9, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a consignment agreement with the Defendant to issue a credit necessary for the Plaintiff’s original import of the goods (i.e., USD 70,926.24, USD 25-30% of the amount of the credit issued, and KRW 25-30% of the amount of the down payment) (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a total of KRW 20 million on January 9, 2019 and KRW 6 million on the following day as the security deposit for the issuance of the credit under the instant contract (hereinafter “the instant security deposit”). D.

On January 14, 2019, around 13:34, the Plaintiff, along with a copy of the C Bank Import Credit Book directly opened by the Plaintiff, sent to the Defendant “no telephone,” and the meaning of the L/C is available. The L/C is returned to 20 million won sent at the rate of misunderstanding on the L/C.

The Kakao Stockholm message sent to “...........”

E. Meanwhile, on January 14, 2019, the Defendant applied for a credit with the name D, the amount of the credit, US$ 40,926.24, and issued the said credit as of January 15, 2019.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 9 through 11, 14 through 18, 22 through 25, and 33, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On January 14, 2019, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not perform its duty to issue a credit under the instant contract, sending the Stockholm message.

Since the contract of this case was cancelled, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the deposit amount of KRW 20 million and the delayed damages.

B. The Defendant asserted that the letter of credit was issued before and after January 14, 2019 according to the instant contract, and that delayed issuance of the letter of credit was erroneous by the Plaintiff’s negligence.