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

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the wholesale and retail business of fishery products in Gyeongcheon-si, Sejong-do, and the Defendant is a member of the D fishing village fraternity consisting of 110 residents residing in Da in Yok-si.

B. As to the case between D fishing village fraternity and the Defendant, the agreement on the exercise of the fishery right on July 15, 2010 between the exercise period and the period from July 26, 2010 to May 30, 2013, which is 69 million won for the exercise period, is drafted on July 15, 2010, with respect to the license for communal fishing business owned by D fishing village fraternity E 12 and F10.

(hereinafter “instant fishing right exercise contract”). C.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 54 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant appears to refer in return to the Plaintiff all of the fish and shellfish supply units, such as natural shots taken pursuant to the instant fishery right exercise contract, to the Plaintiff, compared to the market price of fish and shellfish.

Compared on July 25, 2010, the 6,000 won contract was drawn up to provide monopolys at lower prices.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant volume contract”). D.

With respect to the instant fishing right exercise contract and the volume contract, the Plaintiff paid 90 million won in total to the Defendant as follows:

On July 15, 2010, deposit KRW 15 million with a passbook in the name of G designated by the defendant on July 23, 2010, the payment of KRW 54 million to the defendant on a cashier's check on December 6, 2012 shall be made in the name of the defendant on December 6, 2012.

E. The Defendant did not supply all fish and shellfish to the Plaintiff during the duration of the exercise period stipulated in the instant fishery right exercise contract.

F. On May 21, 2014, the Defendant and D fishing village fraternity Auditor H were sentenced to a fine of two million won for each of the offenses in violation of the Fisheries Act (No. 2013 High Court Decision 822, May 21, 2014). The gist of the offense is as follows.

At present, Gwangju District Court 2014No1467 is continuing the appellate court.

The Defendant, as the fishery right holder of this case, had not less than 50/100 of net profit take the part in H, and had another person, other than the fishery right holder, de facto control over the fishery business, and H.