A. On February 18, 2017, the Defendant entered into a shipbuilding contract under the name of husband C(D) and E and F (E and F are husband and wife.

In relation to the "E, etc." (hereinafter referred to as "E, etc."), the defendant constructed a ship to obtain fishery permission, and the plaintiff entered into a shipbuilding contract with the terms that the plaintiff shall pay 340 million won in return for the construction of the ship (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case") and the main contents thereof are as follows:

Size of a vessel under a shipbuilding contract: 340,000 won for 6.6 tons: Basic Matters: 10,000 won for hull 10,880,000 won for hulls: 650 EMs: 6,6520,000 won: 6.6 tons; 120,000 won for hulls

B. In order to implement the instant contract, the Defendant requested C to build a vessel of 6.6 tons (hereinafter “instant vessel”) and actually built a vessel in G Co., Ltd. at the time C was a director at the time of the instant contract (No. 30). The method of replacing the permitted vessel [the method of obtaining a permit for fishing (alternative, base vessel) for an existing vessel for which a permit for fishing has been granted or a vessel newly built as a substitute for a newly built fishing vessel shall obtain a permit for the alternative vessel of 6 tons] to obtain a permit for fishing for the instant vessel at six tons, and the Defendant submitted a vessel plan to replace the vessel under the Plaintiff’s name of less than six tons after obtaining a permit for fishing for fishing for H, a substitute vessel of 6 tons and securing a vessel permit for fishing for six tons at the time of securing a vessel permit under the Plaintiff’s name (the Defendant received a permit for fishing for fishing for fishing for less than six tons). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vessel inspection at the time of completion of the vessel inspection by the Plaintiff’s employees.