A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of the manufacture and sale, al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., the Plaintiff. The Defendants are trade brokers or trade brokers.

B. Around June 2012, Defendant A entered into an import contract between the Plaintiff and C, and Defendant A heard information that Defendant B and the Trade Brokerage Corporation located in the U.S. (hereinafter “C”) owns a large quantity of waste exhausters on the Lone Star; Defendant A introduced C to E, an employee in charge of the Plaintiff’s trading based on the data received from Defendant B, and presented an English document (Evidence 1, 200,000,000 tons per month, and 1,00,000 tons or more per month, etc. among the C’s transaction details, and Defendant A introduced an application for permission for permission for import (Evidence 1, 200, 300,000 tons per month, and 1,000 tons or more per month).

The application for permission for import of this case states that D will load waste excreta between October 18, 201 and October 18, 2012. However, the application for permission for import of this case is deleted from the name, address, etc. of the existing importer.

Defendant A obtained permission from the Han River Basin Environmental Office to import waste excreta in force until October 18, 2012. As such, Defendant A explained that “D may import waste excreta by changing the Plaintiff to an importer before the said permission expires.”

3. Accordingly, on August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff did not directly contact the seller’s side without going through the Defendants.

The contract of this case made between the plaintiff and C owned by D does not state the fact that the holder of the closed interest that the plaintiff intends to purchase is D.