A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the ice and ice wholesale business with her husband D and ASEAN, and Defendant B is a person who runs the retail business with the trade name of “Gma”, and Defendant C is a person who is punished by Defendant B.

B. On March 20, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a ice-type transaction contract with Defendant B (hereinafter “instant transaction contract”) and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant transaction contract with Defendant B.

Article 1 The supplier (referred to as the Plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall continue to be supplied to the person to whom the goods are supplied at the price of KRW 44 per 10,00,000, which shall be sold to the person who received the goods (referred to as Defendant B; hereinafter the same shall apply).

Article 2 The contract term of the contract is to be paid in advance to the person who receives the daily payment of KRW 00 million as an incentive from March 20, 2009, and the contract amount of the contract for the contract shall be KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

Article III Support for Suppliers

(a) (Omission)

B. The refund of incentives and penalty (1) in the event of failure to perform a contract shall be refunded twice the amount of the advance payment incentives and penalty if the transaction is discontinued without fulfilling any part of the agreed transaction amount due to the reasons attributable to the “person who received the incentives”.

(2) A “person who receives supply” under paragraphs (5) through (6) is prohibited from selling any product of another agency other than the ice cream sold by F during the term of the contract, and the transaction price is premised on cash settlement.

C. At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid 15,000,000 won a bounty to Defendant B, and thereafter supplied ice to Defendant B.

As seen earlier, the unit price for the supply of ice and the instant contract was KRW 44,00 for general products, but the Plaintiff and Defendant B had the unit price for the supply of general products. < Amended by Act No. 1080, Jun. 16, 2011>