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

A. The Plaintiff Company is a company that produces, processes, and sells copier and various machinery from 2007, and used the bending produced by the Defendant Intervenor Company. Defendant A served as an employee of the Defendant Intervenor Company from December 4, 1989 to July 6, 2012.

B. From January 2008 to February 2010, the Plaintiff Company paid KRW 5,338,136,207, G,12,529,00,000 to H, and KRW 69,764,695,55, respectively, from the G operated by Defendant C from February 201 to March 2012, and from the G operated by Defendant C from July 2012 to February 2013, and from July 2012 to February 2013, the Plaintiff Company paid KRW 2,285,731,80 to E, and from the sales proceeds, KRW 5,38,136,207 to F, KRW 12,529,00,00 to H, and KRW 69,764,695 to H.

(hereinafter “instant transaction”). C.

However, Defendant A Co., Ltd., as Defendant A’s social journal, Defendant F’s wife, Defendant A’s Defendant B, and Defendant A’s wife as Defendant A’s wife, Defendant A lent the name of the said Defendants and traded with the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, although Defendant A was accused of fraud in relation to the instant transaction by the Plaintiff Company, he was subject to a disposition from the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, and the Plaintiff Company filed an appeal and an application for adjudication, but all appeals and an application for adjudication were dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 11, 14, 17 through 21, 25 through 28, Eul 1 through 3 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness I's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion 1 is that part of the products from the Defendant A, who was the chief of the J branch business of the Defendant Intervenor Company at the time of January 2008, purchased betling as direct transactions from the Defendant Intervenor Company.