1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 4-1 to 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-1 to 6, Eul evidence 5-1 to 8-10, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, and 3, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the examination by this court.

The Plaintiffs are engaged in the textile processing business under the trade name of “D”, and the Defendant is engaged in clothing and the primary trade business, etc. under the trade name of “E”.

B. The plaintiffs and the defendant processing process (1) processed original parts upon receiving orders from F and F Co., Ltd. (i) the original parts upon receiving orders from F and F Co., Ltd., and the process is the following: ① the original parts purchase from G; ② the H’s pretreatment work; ③ the Plaintiffs’ pretreatment work; ③ the derived strawing work; ④ I’s dumping work; ⑤ the Plaintiffs’ dumping work; ⑤ the dumping work; and vi) the F and F Co., Ltd., the ordering company, are released from the original parts.

(2) The Defendant requested H, the Plaintiffs, and I to conduct a discretionary processing on the original body of H, the Plaintiff, and I, “scambling place” and “scambling place and scambling place.”

(3) Around August 9, 2013, August 14, 2013, and September 8, 2013, the Defendant issued directions to H, Plaintiffs, and I for each LOT to: (a) without any higher request for chlorisome level (class IV or higher); (b) less than 3% of salt color, YDS absolute ex-factory quantity; (c) YDS absolute ex-factory quantity; and (d) to submit 1 YD each office after the inspection; and (c) release of each LOT.

(4) From June 2013 to December 2013, the Plaintiffs were processed upon the Defendant’s request from the Defendant for the processing of fibers, such as pre-processing, derived duplicing, duplicing, and duming work.

C. The Defendant’s unpaid processing fees for the Plaintiffs are KRW 15,77,231 as of February 14, 2014.

2. The plaintiffs' principal claim.