2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners who entered into an entry contract with Defendant Seojin Goods Distribution Co., Ltd., Jind Transport Co., Ltd., Jind Transport Co., Ltd., and order-free freezing Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant trucking business operators”).

B. The Defendant trucking business operator entered into each transport service contract with Defendant Nives Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Nives”)

C. The Defendant trucking business operator ordered the carriage of cargo from Defendant Slives and transported the volume allocated to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs transported the allocated volume. The Defendant trucking business operator received service charges, including oil pay, parking fee, tolls, etc. from Defendant Slives, and paid transportation charges to the Plaintiffs after deducting the amount equivalent to the land admission fee, management fee, insurance premium, and fuel subsidy.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Gap 28 to 31 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs and defendant trucking business operators stated that the plaintiffs should bear oil costs under the vehicle access contract concluded between the plaintiffs and defendant trucking business operators.

In addition, the plaintiffs received transportation charges, including transportation charges, oil charges, and tolls, from the defendant trucking business operators and treated them as sales, and treat oil expenses purchased from the gas station as purchase and report value-added tax.

Therefore, the paid-in subsidy received from the head of a local government should be attributed to the plaintiffs who are local residents.

Nevertheless, the defendant trucking business operator receives service costs from the defendant's dives and deducts the amount equivalent to the fuel subsidy from the plaintiffs without any agreement with the plaintiffs.