A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into the bean supply contract with Defendant B, and paid Defendant B KRW 295,100,000,00,00 from December 19, 201 to May 19, 2011, including the amount of KRW 150,00,000, but Defendant B supplied the Plaintiff with only the sum of KRW 229,283,320, and the remainder does not supply the Plaintiff with the sum of KRW 160,000 (160,000). The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had concluded the supply contract with Defendant B on April 23, 2013 by delivering a copy of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as above, and the Plaintiff was obligated to pay KRW 65,816,680,00 on behalf of the Plaintiff for restitution to its original state, and the Plaintiff was obligated to pay KRW 708,570,705,700.

Defendant B received KRW 145,100,000 from the Plaintiff in accordance with the above import agency contract, and performed as an agent the revenue of KRW 160,00 km equivalent to the sum of KRW 98,233,782,00,00,000, and deducted the revenue agency fee of KRW 32,000,000 and the customs clearance fee of KRW 11,051,791 paid by Defendant B on behalf of the Plaintiff, the amount to be settled by Defendant B is merely KRW 3,814,427.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant B, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant B alone, by examining the determination of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the written evidence Nos. 10 through 16, and 18.