2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 1, 2017, the Plaintiff is engaged in active fish Do and retail business with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant completed business registration as to fishery products retail business with the trade name of “F” located in Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D and E (hereinafter “instant frequency”).

B. The Plaintiff supplied fishery products, such as Do block and farming fish, to the instant frequency, and the Defendant filed a report on the closure of the instant frequency as of March 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant takes over the business of the instant frequency from G, which was the former owner of the instant frequency of the instant frequency on March 31, 2017, and the Plaintiff was obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 31,729,00,00 for the goods that were not supplied with fishery products in the instant frequency. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 31,729,00 and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the frequency of this case was substantially operated in the name of his wife G. In order for H, who borrowed a large amount of money from the Defendant, to provide the Defendant with a security for the lease deposit of the frequency of this case, the Defendant changed the lessee of the frequency of this case to the Defendant and registered the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not participate in the operation of the frequency of this case and did not take over the business of the frequency of this case.

On March 30, 2018, the Defendant changed the lessee’s name and the business operator’s name of the instant frequency to H’s name, and thereafter filed a report on the closure of business. H continued to operate the instant frequency under the name of H.I.

In the course of supplying fishery products to the instant frequency, the Defendant did not have any fact that the Plaintiff met the Plaintiff or divided conversations related to the supply of goods, and the Plaintiff continued to trade with H, which is the actual operator of the instant frequency. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is filed.