1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From 2000 to December 2, 2012, the Plaintiff gave a contract to the Defendant for the production of a stepherical lease product using gold and stephere raw materials provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

around 2006, the Defendant received KRW 35 million from the Plaintiff as the gold production cost, and produced and kept the gold 19 punishment (hereinafter “the gold punishment in this case”). On July 2010, the Defendant issued and delivered the “certificate of gold custody management” with the purport that the Plaintiff would return the gold punishment in this case at the Plaintiff’s request.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant embezzled the remainder of the ice lease raw materials processed by the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant contract even though it returned to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff terminated the instant contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s tort. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the price of the ice lease raw materials remaining after the said processing as compensation for nonperformance of obligation or tort (the Plaintiff, upon partial claim, seeks payment of the amount equivalent to the price of the ice lease raw materials remaining after the processing of the goods supplied by the Defendant from January 201 to December 201, 201, among the damages claim, to the Plaintiff.

2) The Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, failed to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the return of the instant gold punishment, and the Plaintiff produced the same gold punishment as the instant gold punishment and subsequently returned the gold punishment from the Defendant, no interest exists.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the market price of the gold in this case due to damages in lieu of performing the duty to return the gold in this case.

B. Determination Nos. 3 and 4 1 each.