1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract between the Defendant and the Defendant to be provided with Quarrying and crushing stone at the Defendant’s Quarrying site. The main contents are as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract.” Under the conditions of the Defendant’s chassis, the prime tin per vehicle on the basis of 25.5 tons dump truck shall be KRW 50,000, and the g5,000, ppuri crushers shall be KRW 75,00.

The deposit to be borne by the plaintiff shall be KRW 50,000,000, and the defendant shall close each month and issue an account statement, and the plaintiff shall pay the original amount by the fifth day of the following month.

The defendant shall take out at least 100 vehicles based on 25.5 tons in one month, and shall compensate for damages if there is no removal for at least two months, and the plaintiff shall also compensate for damages if there is no removal for at least 10 vehicles in one month and delay for two months.

The term of contract shall be from August 22, 2016 to August 22, 2018.

The parties to the contract shall comply with this contract in accordance with the good faith, and the other party may immediately terminate the contract and claim compensation for damages when the party fails to perform the above matters.

On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant under the instant contract.

After the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff supplied 23,809,500 won at the Defendant’s site from October 26, 2016 to KRW 23,809,50, but was unable to be supplied with crypt and crypted at all since that time.

According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant failed to supply tin and crushing to the plaintiff for a period of two months after October 26, 2016, and on this ground, it is evident that the copy of the complaint of this case, which indicates the intent of the plaintiff to terminate the contract of this case, was served on the defendant on December 26, 2016, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the contract of this case was terminated by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, it is true.