2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. E was killed on June 22, 2014 in the G market located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon, in the name of “H”, engaging in the Do and retail business, such as the Do and retail business.

B. The plaintiffs are the deceased E's successors (the deceased's spouse A3/7, and children of the deceased E are plaintiffs B and C 2/7, respectively. After the deceased of the network E, the plaintiffs A are engaged in the Do and retail business of the deceased's Do and B, with the trade name "I" in the above G market.

C. The Defendant, with the trade name of “J” in the above G G market, is engaged in the Do and retail business, and traded network E, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 5, 7, 10 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion E traded with the Defendant, and at the time of the Defendant’s death of the network E, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the goods to the network E was KRW 121,122,800.

After the death of the network E, the Defendant partially repaid the net E’s obligation for the purchase price of goods, and as of November 7, 2015, the Defendant’s obligation for the purchase price of goods to the network E is KRW 93,952,00.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A, who succeeded to the net E’s claim for the price of goods (i.e., KRW 93,952,00 x 3/7), the Plaintiff B, and C, respectively (i.e., KRW 93,952,00 x 2/7) and damages for delay on each of the said money.

B. On the one hand, as shown in the plaintiffs' assertion, Gap evidence No. 1 (Transaction Book) seems to have been added or added by the plaintiffs, but in addition, E seems to have continuously prepared to prove the details of transactions with the defendant.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence No. 14, i.e., ① there was no tax invoice for transaction details at the time of transaction between the network E and the defendant, and there was no statement of transaction details.