1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance to be written on this case are as follows: "The above 12 million won" was added to "the value-added tax equivalent to the above 12 million won" in Part 2, Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "the plaintiff's main assertion that the return of the down payment based on the cancellation of agreement is requested" is added to "the plaintiff's main assertion that the above 3rd part of the plaintiff's claim for the return of the down payment based on the cancellation of agreement is accepted," and "the plaintiff's main assertion as to the unfair juristic act among the main arguments and the conjunctive assertion are not examined further)" is added to the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment above, it is so cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The addition of judgment;

A. The defendant asserts that the contract for the production and installation of a low temperature storage machine between the plaintiff (hereinafter "the contract of this case") was cancelled due to the plaintiff's circumstances or reasons attributable to the plaintiff, and that the down payment was confiscated.

In light of the records on the evidence No. 1, Article 1(2) of the contract of this case, even though it is recognized that the defendant shall not return the down payment if the contract is cancelled due to the plaintiff's circumstances, it appears to be a provision determining the estimated amount of damages in the event the contract of this case is cancelled due to the plaintiff's default. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret the "act of the plaintiff" of the above provision as "non-performance attributable to the plaintiff."

Furthermore, the above facts are as seen earlier, which had been decided to newly construct a new construction under the instant contract from the Jeju City following the conclusion of the instant contract. However, the above circumstances and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize that the instant contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s causes attributable to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant shall return the down payment.