2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff A as a party refers to anthrax who manufactures an incomplete or heat decomposition of materials containing carbon, such as carbble petroleum or natural gas, from overseas.

It is mainly used as a strengthening system for automobile typists and other rubber products.

The degree of classification is divided into several classes, but there is no practical benefit to distinguish the class in this case, and it is called a "carb" without distinction;

A business entity that manufactures, processes, or sells various rubber products, such as natural rubber imported from natural rubber, etc., and the Plaintiff B also imports raw materials, such as Kabbles, from overseas, and manufactures and sells recyclable tabs, etc.

The actual operator of the plaintiffs is F

Defendant C is the managing director (representative on the register) of Plaintiff A from April 18, 2012 to December 12, 2015, and was delegated by the Plaintiffs during the above period, and was in overall control of the Plaintiffs’ overseas raw materials import business.

Defendant D is a person operating an export-import broker of chemical products called “G” corporation (hereinafter referred to as “G”).

Defendant E is the wife of Defendant C, who is registered as the representative of an individual business entity of “H”.

The importing plaintiffs, such as the Kabccs, imported the Kabs in China through the intermediary companies such as I and J, judged that the revenue from the above intermediary companies falls short of the price competitiveness, and decided on December 20, 2013 to import the Kabs from the Chinese K company (hereinafter referred to as "K") under the direction of plaintiff C (hereinafter referred to as "K").

From around that time to November 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs imported the Kabbbbcs from K (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant transaction”), and G entered into a contract with K as a broker on behalf of the Plaintiffs at each time of transaction.

The plaintiffs remitted the price set forth in the Pwvoe, sent by K, to the account of K, and K transferred the price to the account of K whenever the transaction is terminated.