A. The Plaintiff is a company aimed at the trade business, etc. of the artificial leather products used as materials, such as shoes (hereinafter referred to as the “Leatherium”), and the Defendant is a person who is supplied with the leather source by the Plaintiff and operates the “C”, a company exported to Mexico and Luxembourg.

B. On May 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the delivery method (FOB; FOB); the Defendant entered into a contract between the Defendant and the Defendant to pay the goods by telegraph exchange (T/T; Tleleleh Tleh Trrrrrr) and accordingly, supplied the leather origin to the Defendant on a one-day basis by ordering the leather origin from the Defendant, creating the said leather origin by requesting a Chinese business entity; and supplying it to Mexico viaout the day, as described in the following table:

(hereinafter) When individually named each contract, the phrase “US$ 22,194.69” stated in the complaint No. 59,859.70, 22,194.66 of the product defective in the defendant’s assertion of the unpaid price for the goods on the date of transmission by attaching the sequence below (hereinafter “the instant tea contract”). In light of the column of column No. 2 of the brief No. 2 of April 24, 2017 and the statement No. 2 of evidence No. 1, “U.S. 22,194.66” appears to be “U.S. dollars 22,194.66”

NEWWWA-CHA-R86 2.87 August 27, 2014. 17,260.65 0 NEWBA-APT (BL), NEWBA-APT (PGET) 3, May 12, 2015. 20,790.00 20,790.00 4 May 23, 2015. 26, 430.70. 6,430.70, 430.27 NIBA-A-PT, NIBA-R86 5.7. 18, 2015. 0.25 NUT 20. 5. 5.25. 9. 5. 19. 5. 4. 5. 1.25 . 5 . 5 . 201 .25 . 5 . .20. . .25 . . .25 . . .20. . .25 . .2

C. In relation to the portion exported to Mexico, the Plaintiff is among the leathers supplied from December 2, 2013 to December 2014 under the instant first and second contracts among the Defendant.