1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs franchise business, business consulting business, etc., and the Defendant is an incorporated association that conducts private patrol teams for maritime and coastal safety, operation of rescue teams, and prevention activities.

B. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into the instant agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The instant Convention provides that the Plaintiff shall complete the Defendant’s members and business participants with high-performance C products and construction technology and know-how from the U.S. company for two (2) years of the contract term, and that the Defendant shall recruit agents or the total sales offices with marketing strategies and know-how, and that the Plaintiff shall provide the Defendant with the amount of KRW 150 million investment, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall divide the net income accrued from the said business into 50:50.

C. On November 3, 2016, the date of the contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant.

On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail requesting the Defendant to return KRW 50 million paid to the Defendant, as the Plaintiff could not proceed with the business under the instant Convention due to the rescission of the contract with the U.S. company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, while entering into the instant agreement with the Defendant and promoting the business, was unable to proceed with the business due to the destruction of the contract by the U.S. company.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff terminated the instant agreement as of March 13, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million invested and the amount of delay damages for the return of unjust enrichment following the termination of the instant agreement.

B. Even if the instant agreement was not terminated by the delivery of content-certified mail as of March 13, 2017, the Defendant’s contribution was deducted from the route to which it could not be used or known for the purpose other than the intended business.