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

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the wholesale and retail business through D, which is one of the parties called “C”.

The defendant is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business in the name of "E" and supplies a disturbance to major discount stores, etc.

B. From around November 2, 2012 to November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff continuously supplied a disturbance to the Defendant and received some payments for the goods, and became 8,357,359 won of the outstanding amount on the Plaintiff’s transaction account books (Evidence A 3; hereinafter “instant transaction account books”) on November 2, 2016.

On November 2, 2016, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of KRW 8,357,359 and terminated the transactional relationship.

C. In the process of supplying disturbance to the Defendant, when the Defendant either exercised a discount for sales promotion or held a discount for securing a new customer, the Plaintiff: (a) entered the instant transaction account book with the intent of “F support, etc.” over 10 times as indicated below; and (b) deducted the relevant amount from the outstanding amount of the product price by depositing the money (hereinafter “the instant deposit settlement”); and (c) thereby, the outstanding amount of the product price to be paid to the Plaintiff was reduced or decreased.

F G H I

D. In addition to the matters entered in the instant transaction account book regarding the deposit settlement of the instant case, a separate document stating that the Defendant would refund the amount of the relevant subsidy to the Plaintiff was not prepared.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is merely aimed at supporting the Defendant by lowering the unit supply price that varies depending on the existence and scale of the outstanding amount, even though the Plaintiff did not actually receive the corresponding amount from the Defendant, and by supplying it to the Defendant.