1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is in accordance with the contract concluded on May 12, 2012 from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 2012, the Plaintiff engaged in the manufacture and sales of stone products under the trade name of “C” entered into a contract with the Defendant, the owner of “D”, to manufacture and install two signboard seats and mountainboards to be installed in D, as KRW 57,500,000, and 60 days for construction period (hereinafter “the first contract”).

B. On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to manufacture and install the instant stone and its affiliated bodies, chairs, and girls, etc. (hereinafter “instant stone”) at KRW 207,250,000 (hereinafter “the second contract”).

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant requested suspension of manufacture on the ground that the Plaintiff’s completion of the production of two seat 2 and acids according to the first contract, and that the first and second contract prices for the production of the instant stone are excessive around July 28, 2012 when the Plaintiff made the production of the instant stone according to the second contract, and rejected the Plaintiff’s request for payment.

On May 12, 2012, the Defendant transferred KRW 20,000,000 to the account in the name of the Plaintiff, KRW 5,200,000 on July 5, 2012, KRW 200,000 on KRW 00,00 on September 27, 2012, KRW 43,000,00 on KRW 43,00 on September 27, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 4-1 to 12, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 15-1 to 7, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff completed all of the production of the instant stone 2 and scriptive in accordance with the first contract, but the Defendant did not pay KRW 57,500,000 to the Plaintiff. 2) After the conclusion of the second contract, the Plaintiff: (a) ordered stone for the production of the instant stone in E; (b) ordered part of the instant stone to view the instant stone; and (c) faithfully performed contractual obligations, such as transporting some stone to the Plaintiff’s factory; and (d) on July 28, 2012, the production of the instant stone was suspended by the Defendant unilaterally cancelled the second contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is the following.