1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from January 30, 2014 to May 22, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2013, in order to supply lids from the Defendant’s introduction to the Eastyang PL Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million in total,00,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant for the production of the gold lids from the lids from the water container (hereinafter “the instant gold lids”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”), as the price for the instant contract, KRW 2.9 million on November 13, 2013, KRW 2.1 million on November 18, 2013, KRW 2.1 million on November 29, 2013, and KRW 35 million on November 29, 2013.

B. Around May 2014, the Defendant produced the instant gold model and carried out an examination from the Plaintiff’s factory, but the withdrawal did not meet the requirements required by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to revise the said gold model.

C. Around June 2014, the Defendant continued to perform the correction work and then suspended the production in a state where the defect of the foregoing gold-type was not repaired.

On March 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant contract and demanded the return of the contract amount on the ground that the Defendant did not comply with the request for repair of defects over several occasions, and the Defendant recovered the instant gold payment in the Plaintiff’s factory.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 7 (including, if any, various numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the instant contract was terminated on March 2015 by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of the failure to complete the instant gold sentence. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the contract price of KRW 35 million due to restitution.

In regard to this, the defendant did not separately set the payment period of the gold punishment of this case, and the defendant argued that he had to temporarily suspend the completion of the gold punishment of this case until the plaintiff's factory is operated normally under the agreement with the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, it is recognized by the evidence mentioned above.