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

A. The Plaintiff is a company that produces industrial machinery, steel structure, electric equipment, etc.; Defendant C is a representative of E located in Daegu Northern-gu D; Defendant B is a father of Defendant C, who is the actual operator of E.

B. On November 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with FF Corporation to supply electric equipment and appliances, and for this purpose, the Plaintiff entrusted the Defendants with the electric equipment and requested the FF Corporation to do so.

C. Upon the termination of the supply contract between the Plaintiff and the F Corporation, the Defendants sold the electric equipment to the Plaintiff with KRW 170 million and deducted the gold processing cost of KRW 57,469,192, etc., and subsequently paid KRW 100 million.

On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff, as the Defendants, prepared a contract on the transfer of goods, stating that “The Plaintiff, as E, transfers the entire quantity of the goods to E, “I transfer the entire quantity of the goods to E” and “I transfer the entire quantity of the goods to E (350 million won, such as materials and gold, etc.)”, “I transfer the entire goods.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract for the transfer of the electric equipment”). (e)

On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the supply contract with I operating a private entrepreneur called H (hereinafter “H”) on the condition that the contract for the supply of PPP goods is null and void. On the same day, each of the revised electronic tax invoices issued with the Plaintiff, the recipient of H, and the recipient of H, had the grounds for cancellation, amount, -84,070 won, -7,458,00 won.

E. The Defendants transferred all the equipment and materials kept by the Defendants to J (hereinafter “J”) and received the electronic bills of KRW 70,608,120 with the transfer proceeds on January 27, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 8, 9, 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that they were in their custody at the time of the contract for the transfer of the electric equipment of this case.