A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “D”, runs a surface treatment business, such as strawing and flacing, and the Defendants related to both spouses are operating “E” as manufacturers of printing machine parts, such as flacing and flacing business operators as Defendant B.

B. On September 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a verbal agreement with the Plaintiff to sell the terms used by the Defendants to the customers and pay the Plaintiff the amount of the melting (hereinafter referred to as “the instant sprink agreement”) to the Defendants by melting cryping (which is a cooling technology that can cryping the terms used by the parties for convenience without any heat transformation into cryping materials, melting the cryping materials in the form of powder cryp, electric cryp or cryp salt, and then providing them to the Defendants, the Defendants sold them to the customers and supplied them to the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the instant cryp agreement”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff: (a) around that time, he supplied stampling to the strawet supplied by the Defendants; and (b) sold the strawet to his customer; and (c) sold the strawet to the Plaintiff; and (d) traded by issuing a tax invoice equivalent to the amount paid when the Defendants paid the strawing to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants sent an e-mail accompanied by the documents for identifying the inventory quantity (No. B. 1) prepared by the Defendant on February 28, 2013 through the employee FF around February 2013, and then sent the e-mail to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2013, and then “after the settlement is completed at the end of February, three months, and the records of transactions, defective records, and delivery details will be sent as the file, and the increased co-rating unit price will be applied from April 2013 to April 200, to the effect that “the cooperation is made to ensure that the rapid quantity is carried out as soon as possible.”