A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers) and the entire arguments, the defendant received a decision to commence a ship auction and provisional seizure against ships in the case of Gwangju District Court 2016Kadan7215 (hereinafter referred to as "each ship of this case") from the Busan District Court 2016Kadan7215 (hereinafter referred to as "each ship of this case"). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20100, Sep. 16, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 27870, Oct. 6, 2016 to Nov. 5, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 27779, Oct. 24, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27720, Oct. 17, 2017>

Although the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted to the effect that each of the instant consignment management contracts was concluded only with respect to each of the instant vessels, they did not conclude each of the instant consignment management contracts, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant delegated the authority to each of the instant consignment contracts to G at the time of entering into each of the instant consignment management contracts; and (b) the Defendant’s representative director recognized that each of the instant consignment contracts was affixed a seal on each of the instant consignment contracts, it is recognized that each of the instant consignment contracts was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and

The circumstances that the Plaintiff did not claim the price to the Defendant for a considerable period under each of the instant consignment management contracts, or that F paid part of the price under the instant consignment management contract to the Plaintiff, as seen below, are each of the instant consignment management contracts between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.