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

A. The Plaintiff supplied steel materials necessary for dredging B, which is an ordinary vessel, to remodel B with dredging lines (a vessel equipped with facilities for excavating soil, sand, gravel, stones, etc. on the floor of a river, port, harbor, etc.). The amount equivalent to KRW 56,903,440 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on December 24, 2013; the amount equivalent to KRW 9,936,379 on January 6, 2014; the amount equivalent to KRW 101,189,866 on January 14, 2014; the amount equivalent to KRW 57,253,796 on January 28, 2014; the amount equivalent to KRW 56,610,610 on February 17, 2014; the amount equivalent to KRW 25,275; the amount equivalent to or below the price of each of the steel materials in this case (hereinafter referred to as “the price of each material in this case”).

(The sum total of 287,394,550 Won 291,166,530 stated in the complaint shall be the amount calculated by mistake.). (b)

Of the above steel materials, the Plaintiff received KRW 160,770,400, total of KRW 51,730,400 on December 19, 2013, KRW 9,040,00 on January 7, 2014, and KRW 160,770,400 on January 16, 2014.

C. The Defendant on January 15, 2014

1. A while being kept in custody of KRW 549,00,000, which was remitted on January 22, 201, the sum of KRW 240,689,402, among the seven occasions between January 15, 2014 and February 7, 2014, were embezzled for personal purposes.

C On June 23, 2016, it transferred KRW 130,396,090 among the embezzlement claim amounting to KRW 240,689,402, which was held against the Defendant, to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the purport of the assignment of claim on the same day.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 5-1 through 7, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 8, 12, 13, 14, Eul evidence 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Each of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 10, 15-18, and 21, which correspond to the fact that the party to whom the steel materials of this case were supplied, is the Defendant, is hard to believe with the Defendant, in light of the facts acknowledged later, and evidence Nos. 4-1, 4-1, and 5-1.