A. On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff is a trucking company, and the Defendant was a company that runs livestock products wholesale business, etc., and the Defendant was changed from B corporation to the Defendant.

B. On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a transport contract with the Defendant to claim and settle transport expenses, etc. that the Defendant delegated to the Plaintiff and delegated to the Plaintiff, twice a month.

(hereinafter “instant transport contract”). C.

On August 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a three-dimensional lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million for five (5) years from the date of concluding the contract with the third Deputy Director of the Defendant Building, the third Deputy Director of the Defendant Building, located in Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-gun, Seoul.

(hereinafter “instant lease contract”) D.

From August 5, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff wired KRW 300,000,000,000 on August 5, 2015, as indicated in the following table, on the date of remittance, to the account in the name of the Defendant, as indicated in the following table: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2650, Aug. 21, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26770, Aug. 25, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26770, Sep. 27, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26707, Sep. 30, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26707, Sep. 30, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26707, Oct. 30, 200, total of KRW 307,670,000.

Amounting to KRW 10,00,000,000 on September 4, 2015, 2015; KRW 50,000,000 on September 7, 2015; and KRW 30,000,000 on September 11, 2015; and KRW 110,000,000 on September 10, 2015;

E. From September 4, 2015 to September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 110,000,000 to E’s account under the name of the spouse D, who was the actual operator of the Defendant.

F. On February 14, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded the tax lease agreement of the instant case on the premise that the Plaintiff would have the operating interest of the Vice Director as interest for the loan. However, the Plaintiff’s business continued to be operated as the enemy because the Defendant’s slaughter business was not properly conducted, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot continue the business of the Vice Director, the sum of the loans remitted to the Defendant and the lease deposits for the Vice Director, the sum of the loans that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant and the lease deposits for the instant Vice Director.