A. The plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells railroad-related goods and is located in Germany.

B. Around January 2016, the executives of the Plaintiff and the executives of C Company, the Plaintiff’s logistics agent (hereinafter “C”) visited the Defendant Company and consulted on the sale of railroad-related goods produced by the Plaintiff in Germany.

C. On June 29, 2016, D, registered as an intra-company director on the Defendant’s corporate registry, purchased from the Plaintiff the total of 27,703 U.S. goods, including e-mail, e-mail, from the Plaintiff. “PURCHAS OCRER” (hereinafter “instant product principal documents”).

The plaintiff delivered the order of goods from C to C, and C delivered it to D on June 30, 2016.

Since then, D delivered to the Plaintiff an intention to purchase 422 'G' equivalent to the same method, and the Plaintiff also delivered the intent to comply with it in the same way.

The name of the defendant is printed on the top of the product principal document of this case (attached Form) in the attached form.

E. On July 22, 2016, the Defendant loaded railroad-related goods ordered by D (hereinafter “instant goods”) in Germany, issued commercial invoice and delivered it to C on July 26, 2016, and C sent the said commercial invoice to D.

F. The instant goods entered Busan Port around September 4, 2016.

G. On December 12, 2016, D filed a lawsuit claiming the price of goods against I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) as the representative director of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016No4850, supra.

The cause of the claim alleged by H in the above case was that the Plaintiff requested the supply of the railroad-related goods manufactured and sold by the foreign company, and supplied the goods equivalent to the total amount of KRW 5,943,854 to the non-party company.