A. On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C, the father of Defendant C, who jointly operates the “D”, to purchase KRW 104,20,000 for each of the 104 products of SPDA (PRADA) from the Defendants as to the 104 products of SPDA (PRDA), and for the remaining 5 products, the Plaintiff paid KRW 131,50,000 for each of the 1,250,000 won for each of the 1,350,000 won for each of the 1,31,550,000 won for each of the 1,350,000 won for each of the 1,350,000 won for each of the 1,5,000,000 won for each of the purchase money, and the remainder was paid to the Defendants via the above E.

B. At the time of the above transaction, E reported the price, volume, etc. to Defendant B in real time, and the Plaintiff paid the price in full, and requested the Defendants to issue a tax invoice to the Defendants, and the Defendants refused to do so. On May 13, 2015, Defendant C issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff on May 13, 2015 to the effect that only the portion of KRW 55 million was not an electronic tax invoice.

C. After purchasing the instant bank from the Defendants, the Plaintiff sold 89 out of 89 of them to SP, Inc. (hereinafter “SP”), and the remainder is planned to distribute and sell them in Korea, and it is necessary to prove that the instant bank is a valuable product. As at the time of the instant transaction, the Plaintiff asked the Defendants as to whether QR code was included in the instant bank, and obtained the confirmation from the Defendants. Since the Defendants confirmed the instant bank around April 2014 after receiving the delivery of the instant bank from the Defendants, they did not contain any QR code, and thus, requested the Defendants to return it to the Defendants. The Defendants offered QR code to the Plaintiff on August 2015, but it is not against the instant bank purchased by the Plaintiff.