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

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the manufacturing and selling business of clothing.

Defendant B operates a mutual company called “F”, and Defendant C runs the business of selling malicious materials in the Southern-ro market. Defendant D operates a mutual company called “G”, and Defendant E operates the mutual company called “H”.

B. Around August 2006, E-tax investigation and E-tax investigation conducted a tax investigation on the so-called data suspected of having issued and distributed a false tax invoice under the Plaintiff’s name by the Plaintiff’s representative director, and “I issued 45 copies of the false sales tax invoice of KRW 1,336,431,00 in total without supplying goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act from July 1, 2004 to December 31, 2005, and received 29 copies of the false purchase tax invoice of KRW 1,540,648,000 from five companies, including the beneficiary personal information, etc. during the same period.

The branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition to the effect that the statute of limitations on September 23, 201 has expired as of December 30, 2010 after taking charge of this case and conducting an investigation.

Seoul District Prosecutors' Office 201 type 2491 (No. 2491) c.

Defendant C, who distributed or purchased the false sales tax invoice of the Defendants, received the false sales tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff from J and sold it to four business partners in the U.S.

Defendant B purchased KRW 10,102,00 on the purchase of the false sales tax invoice under the Plaintiff’s name without any actual transaction in the first quarter of January 2006, and Defendant D used KRW 40,289,000 on the purchase of the false sales tax invoice under the Plaintiff’s name without actual transaction in the second quarter of February 2005, and Defendant E used KRW 30,183,000 on the purchase of the false sales tax invoice under the Plaintiff’s name without actual transaction in the second quarter of February 2006.

When Defendant E was subject to a subsequent tax investigation, the above false purchase.