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

A. On November 28, 2012, the Plaintiff, via D, registered the same trade name as “E”, which is the father between the Defendants and the Defendants, and jointly performed the instant supply transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff at the same place of business where the Defendants were separately affiliated with each other.” After receiving the voucher from “E”, the Plaintiff continued to be supplied with the Defendants with the voucher from the Defendants until the end of May 2014 when paying the said price to the Defendants’ account, and made transactions from the Defendants by paying the said price to the Defendants’ account. Any transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was made through D.

B. In order to be supplied with the entire volume of the volume of the volume of the volume produced from E while being supplied with the volume from E as above, the Plaintiff heard the horses that KRW 100 million should be paid to E as the deposit, and paid KRW 100 million as the Defendant’s account on January 7, 2014, and KRW 50 million on January 15, 2014.

C. Before the Plaintiff’s transaction with E ends, the amount of the voucher supplied from E was paid to the Defendants.

The Defendants received an order from D and supplied friendly volume to a place designated by D including the Plaintiff, and around July 2015, the supply price of friendly volume that was not paid from D was approximately KRW 170 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, Eul evidence No. 3 (including additional numbers), witness D's partial testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendants’ business management “E” through D’s brokerage and was supplied by the Defendants; (b) the Plaintiff, at the request of the Defendants, required to pay the Plaintiff a deposit to secure the Plaintiff’s current or future obligation for payment of the purchase price of goods; and (c) the Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 100 million as KRW 50 million on January 7, 2014 and KRW 50 million on January 15, 2014.