1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 26, 2013 to April 28, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the collection of scrap metal (hereinafter “instant divided steel contract”) with the Plaintiff to collect scrap metal produced in Category 1 Factory (Ulsan-gu D) operated by the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff from July 24, 2013 to the same year

8. Until December 26, 200, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 100 million to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with the powder.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant revoked the instant subdivision contract under agreement, and the Defendant, on November 2, 2013, prepared and sent to the Plaintiff a letter related to the method of return of KRW 100 million in the amount of the divided steel.

[Grounds for recognition] The non-existence of a dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the contract of this case was cancelled due to an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 100 million paid by the plaintiff to the defendant due to its restitution, as requested by the plaintiff, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from August 26, 2013 to April 28, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 250 million with the powder iron, but did not supply the remainder as it did not pay the remainder. Thus, the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant still remains valid, and the Defendant did not agree to cancel the contract of this case and return KRW 100 million with the Plaintiff, but did not follow the situation such as whether to grant a loan. The Defendant’s agreement to prepare to the Plaintiff does not mean that he would re-examine the Plaintiff on November 6, 2013.