The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the wholesale and retail business of fishery products in Gyeongcheon-si in Gyeongcheon-si, and the Defendant is a member of the D fishing village fraternity comprised of 110 residents residing in Yeo-si, Young-si.

B. On July 15, 2010, the D fishing village fraternity and the Defendant concluded a contract on the exercise of the fishery right (hereinafter “instant fishery right exercise contract”) with D fishing village fraternity E 12 and F 10 shares owned by D fishing village fraternity (hereinafter “instant fishing ground”). From July 26, 2010 to May 30, 2013, the exercise period was from July 26, 2010 to May 30, 2013, namely, KRW 69 million (=23 million x 3 years).

C. On July 25, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 54 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant, in return, refers to the supply unit of the fish and shellfish to the Plaintiff as a unit of the household (hereinafter “instant quantities contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would supply all of the fish and shellfish, such as a natural shots, collected in accordance with the instant fishery right exercise contract, to the Plaintiff, at a lower price than 60,000 won per day (hereinafter “instant quantities contract”).

The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 99 million to the Defendant with respect to the instant fishing right exercise contract and the instant quantity contract as follows.

On July 15, 2010, deposited KRW 15 million with a passbook in the name of G designated by the Defendant on July 23, 2010, deposited KRW 54 million with a cashier’s check on February 6, 2012, deposited KRW 30 million with a passbook in the name of the Defendant on February 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 the D fishing village fraternity Auditor H were sentenced to KRW 2 million each fine for the crime (violation of Article 32(1) of the Fisheries Act) stating that “The Defendant de facto controlled the fishery operation of the instant fishing ground to H, while H actually controlled the fishery operation of the instant fishing ground,” and that “H was in fact in the instant fishing ground,” and the judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 2.