A. On January 17, 201, Plaintiff A’s assertion filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of KRW 30,000,000 for noble fish and its delay damages, alleging that Plaintiff A supplied the Defendant with noble fishing KRW 300,000 via F.

B. In full view of the evidence No. 12-2 and witness G’s testimony, Plaintiff A’s provision of sublime fishing to the Defendant, as a whole, can be acknowledged.

Furthermore, examining the quantity and the price of sublim fishing carried by the Plaintiff A supplied to the Defendant, according to the evidence No. 12-18 and the witness F’s testimony (except for the portion not trusted in the rear) that corresponds to the Plaintiff’s argument that the price is KRW 30,00,000, it can be acknowledged that the witness F’s testimony that the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant is a false tax invoice for filing a false entry report even before the Plaintiff supplies the goods to the Defendant. The witness F’s testimony that the sublim fishing price supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 26,460,00 is difficult to believe in light of the statement No. 4 and the witness G’s testimony that the Plaintiffs submitted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 12-2, the defendant alleged that he was supplied KRW 18,000,000 3,600 kg 1,900 kg for sublime fish 18,000 kg during the investigation process in which he filed a complaint against Eul for perjury. Thus, the plaintiff Gap supplied KRW 18,000 for sublime fish 18,000 for the defendant, and the price shall be KRW 6,840,00 ( KRW 1,900 x 3,600 g).

Therefore, from February 23, 2012 to December 4, 2013, the date of this decision, which is the date of this decision, the defendant's objection against the plaintiff A as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as well as the 6,840,000 won for noble fishing, shall be 5% per annum under the Civil Act and from the following day.