(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(Provided, That this part concerning Defendant B). (b)

Judgment by public notice: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act

C. Dismissal portion: The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 30, 2013 to the date of full payment. However, 5% per annum under the Civil Act shall apply from July 30, 2013 to the date of delivery of a complaint, and 15% per annum from the date of delivery of a complaint shall apply.

2. As to the claim against the defendant C

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The primary argument is that the Plaintiff is an agricultural partnership that operates agriculture business and engages in incidental business. Defendant B is a person who cultivates agricultural products, such as Go-gu, and Defendant C is a person who sells agricultural products in the Daegu North-gu D market. On July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff introduced Defendant B through the introduction of Defendant C, and decided to purchase Go-gu 120 million won, and transferred KRW 120 million to Defendant B on July 30, 2013. However, in collusion with Defendant B, Defendant C sold Go-gu Ma to the Plaintiff, instead of supplying it, or disposed of it by offsetting it, or by offsetting his debt he bears to the Defendant B. As such, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive act constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, Defendant C did not have an obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, and the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages amounting to KRW 100 million.

However, Defendant C, as it was supplied with and sold the ancient horse that the Plaintiff agreed to be supplied, should return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 120 million equivalent to the amount paid by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. First of all, we examine the primary argument.

Defendant C.