The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties had entered into a total sales contract with the Defendants, and accordingly supplied the goods to the Defendants. Defendant B sought partial payment of KRW 12,392,848,060, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant D’s KRW 4,396,778,529, and Defendant E did not pay the goods amounting to KRW 3,346,525,395, and thus, Defendant E did not pay the goods amounting to KRW 3,346,525,395.

The Defendants asserted by the Defendants concluded the so-called “pre-sale contract” that orders the Plaintiff to increase the Plaintiff’s sales from August 2009 to March 201, 201. The Plaintiff did not supply the goods to the Defendants regarding the pre-sale order.

The price for the above goods claimed by the Plaintiff includes the price for the above goods (Defendant B 1,313,35,417 won, Defendant C873,335,549 won, Defendant D1,482,356,211 won, Defendant E1,22,426,063 won). Thus, the corresponding amount should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

Judgment

The plaintiff, while engaging in a transaction with the defendants, issued and delivered a certificate of storage of goods from August 2009 to March 201, 201.

Each certificate of storage of goods states "I confirm that the above goods are in custody," and the amount of the goods stated in the certificate of storage of the goods is the total of KRW 1,193,941,28,288, the sum of KRW 793,941,409, the aggregate of KRW 1,544,123,031, and the aggregate of KRW 1,111,296,421.

From 2008 to 2012, the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice, detailed statement of transaction, etc. without supplying goods in collusion with the customer for the purpose of increasing the business performance from 2008 to 2012.

"A series of crimes, such as imposition of administrative fines on the ground that they are accused of the prosecution.