2...

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “D”.

The Defendants are both married couple; Defendant C is respectively registered as the business entity of “F” located in Incheon Jung-gu from September 10, 2002 to May 2, 2013; Defendant B is the business entity of “G” located in the same place from August 18, 2009 to May 1, 2012; and the business entity of “I” located in the same place from November 10 to May 2, 2013.

B. Meanwhile, from October 4, 2002 to March 23, 2009, the trade name of Defendant B was changed from H to “G”, and from March 23, 2009 to March 23, 2009, K, an infant of the Defendants, respectively, is registered as the business entity of “G”. < Amended by Act No. 9503, Mar. 23, 2009; Act No. 9502, Aug. 17, 2009>

C. The Plaintiff supplied fishery products, such as active fish, from around 202 to F, “G,” and “I,” which had been operated in the course of the frequency of business. The main text and settlement of fishery products were conducted in a lump sum without distinction between the said place of business.

With respect to the supply of the above fishery products, the total amount of the price for fishery products that the Plaintiff had not received by May 1, 2013 is KRW 372,85,800.

[Ground for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 3 (including a Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the signature part of defendant C’s signature is presumed to have been authentic, since there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant C, the entire document is presumed to have been authentic. The defendant C alleged that the credit balance column was signed in a blank state, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, but the above assertion is not accepted), Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 5 through 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 11, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendants asserted that they were supplied with fishery products from the Plaintiff since 2002 while jointly operating “F”, “G”, and “I” for the purpose of getting exempted from value-added tax.

However, the Defendants are as above.