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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 16,272,064,160 won and 6,011,185,290 won among them, 4,827,897,580 won from December 1, 2010 to December 16, 2010, 5,432,980,630 won per annum from January 1, 201 to the delivery date of each complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff first in accordance with the express sales contract, pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act as the representative liability of the expression agency of the conjunctive special sales contract, second in accordance with the ancillary credit extension contract, second in accordance with Article 126 of the Civil Act as the ancillary liability of the user, and fourth in accordance with the ancillary liability of the user under Article 3 of the Civil Act as the conjunctive liability of the user).

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

(a) Relationship between the Parties

1) The Plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of general distribution business and franchise store business.

2) The Defendant, as a public institution affiliated with the Small and Medium Business Administration, is a corporation established for the purpose of expanding markets for small and medium enterprises, such as public relations, exhibition, mail order, electronic commerce transaction, home shopping business, and consignment sales business, and small and medium retail distribution support business. From around 2005, the Defendant supplies small and medium-sized products to be sold at points, etc., such as a new master Vender card, 1) credit card company, etc. as a master card, 2005.

3) The Defendant’s business of purchasing and selling goods purchased from the Defendant’s small and medium business goods and the sales of the goods purchased from the Defendant’s company is Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1). The actual operator is Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1).

B. Business partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and business trust agreement between the defendant and the third party

1) On August 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement on the business partnership on the points driving business (hereinafter “instant business partnership agreement”). The gist of the instant business partnership agreement is to cooperate with the Plaintiff and the Defendant that were competing in the credit card company’s points driving business, and provide opportunities for delivery to the other party in the transaction that was awarded by each credit card company (i.e.,, the Plaintiff’s provision of opportunities for delivery through the Plaintiff in the points driving trade that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff, and the provision of opportunities for delivery through the Defendant in the case of the points driving that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff is offered). Accordingly, the Plaintiff provided opportunities for the Plaintiff to participate in the instant business partnership agreement, such as the national card points driving in the receipt of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s provision of opportunities for delivery by the Defendant, and the Defendant also provided opportunities for the Plaintiff to participate in the Defendant’s non-cock points driving transaction that the Defendant received.

2) Around October 2005, the Defendant entered into an exclusive agency contract for the business of selling and selling goods at the Internet shopping mall (credit card companies and distributors’ points sunset, etc.) and continued to renew and maintain the entrustment contract. On November 2009, the Defendant entered into an entrustment contract with the third company each of the following terms (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”).

(1) The purpose of this contract is to promote the mutual benefits of both companies as well as expansion of support for the market of small and medium enterprises on the basis of the confidential relationship between the defendant and the 10th day. The definitions of terms used in this contract under Article 2 (Definition of Terms) are as follows: ① Internet shopping mall operated by each card company is set points so that customers can use accumulated cards points, and the goods are sold or provided in points sunset. ② Other entrusted projects: (2) Other entrusted projects refer to projects that supply goods to the defendant by proxy and conduct sales and business activities on behalf of the defendant. (3) Other entrusted projects: 1) Other entrusted projects are projects that purchase, supply and sell goods on behalf of the defendant (e.g., business welfare, etc. of the executives and employees). (1) The defendant may not obtain prior approval of the entrusted projects under the name of the defendant, such as separate office space, telephone charges, and telecommunications charges, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant may use the entrusted projects”).

3) According to the instant consignment contract, around 2006, the employees of the third company of the third company made and used a name verifying that they belong to the Defendant under the Defendant’s approval. In the first place, the name was entered into “(P) Small and Medium Enterprise Distribution Promotion Team”, “(P) Small and Medium Enterprise Distribution Promotion Team”, and “(P) Small and Medium Enterprise Distribution Promotion Team B2B Team”, etc., and Nonparty 2, who was the employee of the first day, had been in practical consultation with the Plaintiff, used the name of the Defendant for the first time. ② From around 2006, the Defendant provided a third company office with a part of the 14th office of the Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ department, which was used as the Defendant’s head office. ③ The Defendant also provided the Defendant’s phone number (name omitted) with the Defendant’s representative phone number to the Defendant’s department to which the Defendant belongs.

4) around July 2006, Nonparty 2 requested the Plaintiff to designate the date as a purchaser in the transaction that the Plaintiff supplies to the Defendant pursuant to the instant business partnership agreement. The structure of the points delivery transaction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant points delivery transaction”) that is proceeding with the third company ? Plaintiff ? Defendant ” was formed upon the Plaintiff’s request.

5) On December 2007, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to verify the conclusion of the consignment contract between the Defendant and the first day with respect to the points charter business, and the Defendant respondeded to the Plaintiff that “The day was an agent for the Defendant under a contract between the Defendant and the first day to conduct exclusive business for the salesroom sales business of Internet shopping mall (such as card companies and distribution companies’ points, etc.).” After which the Plaintiff had conducted the sales contract with the Defendant after consultation with the first day.

6) Meanwhile, the third party company acting as an agent for the Defendant in transactions other than the instant point delivery transaction, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained separate transaction relations with the third party company as the purchaser or the seller respectively. The Plaintiff’s transaction with the third party company as the seller was suspended on December 2007 by the third party company, but the third party company’s transaction with the third party company as the seller did not provide the Plaintiff with a security for credit sales claims. However, the Defendant’s transaction with the third party company as the seller continued to account for a considerable portion of the Defendant’s sales until October 2010.

C. The point delivery transaction method in the instant case

1) The supply transaction of the points in this case was implemented through the actual phase as follows.

(1) Stage 1: Orders of credit card holders;

A credit card company member shall place an order for goods through points sunset.

(2) Stage 2: Examining the status of orders.

No. 3 On behalf of the defendant, the third company shall grasp the product order status by accessing the points based on the defendant's points ID and password or by accessing the card company's internal site to verify the details of the order of telemarket.

(3) Stage 3: Procurement and delivery of goods.

The third company shall, without sending the order, etc. of the goods concerned to the Plaintiff, directly raise the goods from the manufacturing company to color them, and deliver the goods to the customer through the door-to-door company.

(4) Stage 4: The third third party's claim for the price against the plaintiff.

The third party company shall issue a tax invoice to the Plaintiff and claim the payment for the goods delivered, together with the settlement data specifying the kind, quantity, price, and the amount to be claimed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

(5) Stage 5: Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for payment

After paying the price of the goods to the third company of the day, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant on the basis of such payment, and then claims the price of the goods for which the call center commission, delivery charge, and the Plaintiff’

(6) Stage 6: Payment of the defendant's price for goods.

The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's claim amount based on the details of transactions of the third party company.

2) The Plaintiff paid delivery charges under a contract with the Korea Transportation Agency. The Plaintiff’s employees Nonparty 3, etc. visited the Korea Transportation Agency at least twice a month to check and settle the amount of civil petitions filed by credit card companies using points points or centering on many orders.

3) The Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff was made on the 15th day of the following month in the case of a good supplied through e-mail, and on the 15th day following the following month in the case of a good supplied through e-mail.

4) Before the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the price of the instant goods was rejected, the Defendant paid all the price of the goods under the aforementioned process to the Plaintiff.

D. Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods and Defendant’s refusal of payment

The Plaintiff paid KRW 15,58,826,690, a sum of KRW 2) 15,58,826,690, as described in Table 1, to the third party, upon the request of the third party in Japan, and thereafter the Plaintiff’s profit was added to the Plaintiff’s profit, and the Defendant claimed KRW 16,272,064,160 in aggregate as described in Table 2, but the Defendant refused payment on the ground that the goods were not actually supplied.

The amount of money as the date of the payment of the price of the ticket contained in the main sentence of October 2010, 2010, which is the date of the payment of the price of the ticket 5,718,451,090 on October 20, 2010, shall be October 9, 2010, 3,508,245,290 on October 9, 2010, 2010: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22426, Oct. 9, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22467, Oct. 9, 2010>

The period of the supply of the attached goods contained in the main sentence shall be October 30, 2010, 16, 272, 064, 160, 160, October 30, 2010, 6,011, 185, 950 on October 30, 2010; December 15, 2010, 15, 827, 897, 580 on December 15, 2010, 16, 16, 272, 064, 630 on November 31, 2010.

E. The circulation, processing transaction, and criminal punishment of Nonparty 1 (hereinafter referred to as Nonparty 1)

1) In order to raise funds to pay the debt incurred by investing in the home shopping business, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) suffered a loss of approximately KRW 4 billion, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) did not confirm the order details or delivery details of the credit card company members in daily, and the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) could be an independent sales office of the defendant, separate from the credit card company's points driving. Thus, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) made the processed transaction using the fact that the distribution flow of goods can lead to the 3th company like the plaintiff ? the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) and the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) did not confirm the order details or delivery details of the credit card company members in daily, and the non-party 3 was entrusted with the purchase and sales business by the defendant and the non-party 1 (the non-party 1).

2) From August 207, Nonparty 1 (Outboard Person) started processing transactions by adding a single unit sales to one unit sales from the instant points delivery transaction from around August 2007. The part of the Defendant’s refusal to pay the price is also a processed and circular transaction without any movement of goods.

3) The non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) processed circular transactions as above and inflicted damages exceeding KRW 20 billion on the plaintiff, commercial c&A, same-sex c&C, and DNA marketing, etc., and was prosecuted as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and finally convicted of five years of imprisonment on November 29, 2012 at Seoul High Court. The above judgment became final and conclusive as the Seoul High Court’s appeal period on December 7, 2012 [the Seoul High Court 2012No172, 3594 (merged)].

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 11, 17 18, 20, 21, 25, 27, 30, 33, 34, 40, 42, Eul 7, 9 through 11, 13, 20, 21, 35, 39 (if there are provisional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the claim to the plaintiff according to the following grounds for the claim.

(i) Main Claim: Liability arising from a sale and purchase transaction;

The instant points delivery transaction is a type of the express sheet transaction, which is a non-exclusive contract that facilitates the Defendant’s credit card companies points delivery business, and is a non-exclusive contract, and the Plaintiff does not have any duty to supply actual goods to the Defendant, by ensuring that the third party, a comprehensive business trustee of the Defendant, can smoothly secure goods and deliver them to the final customer through prior payment and bearing of expenses for goods, etc., without any involvement in the process of goods purchase and delivery.

Therefore, even if the goods were not supplied to the defendant, the defendant notified the plaintiff through the third company, a business trustee, of the fact that the goods were delivered to the plaintiff through the third company, and as long as the plaintiff believeded and paid the price to the third company on the third company day, the plaintiff is deemed to have fulfilled all the obligations under the special contract under the Agreement on the Business Alliance of this case. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the price claimed by the plaintiff to the plaintiff

(ii) First preliminary claim: Responsibility to act as an agent for an expression of special sales;

Even if the Defendant did not grant the authority to conclude the above special sales contract to the third company in Japan, the third company company was a comprehensive business trustee of the Defendant, and the Defendant used the name of the third company employees in Japan, which indicates that he belongs to the Defendant, and had the third company employees in Japan use part of the 14th company floor of the Defendant’s head office as the office without separately indicating the third company name. The Defendant continued to pay the Plaintiff the price without raising any objection only once in the transaction through the third company company in the fourth company for more than four to five years. Therefore, there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff has the authority to conclude the above agreement with the third company.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the price of goods to the plaintiff in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act

(iii) 2 preliminary claim: Liability under a credit extension contract;

The substance of the instant points delivery transaction is a credit extension contract (or a monetary loan) with the purport of receiving reimbursement from the Defendant in addition to a certain profit if the Plaintiff received a notice of the completion of goods delivery from the third party on the first day before receiving the payment from the Defendant, and advance payment to the third party on the third party on the first day.

The third company's notice of completion of delivery constitutes an expression of intent to provide credit equivalent to the claimed amount. The third company, as a comprehensive and exclusive business trustee of the defendant, requested credit extension within the limit of the procurement price of each individual product for each individual transaction, including the unpaid points delivery transaction in this case on behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, as seen earlier by the plaintiff, it can be deemed that the third company extended credit to the whole amount by lending money equivalent to the total amount of KRW 15,558,820,690 to the defendant, as seen earlier.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to repay the money paid or paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and interest thereon.

(iv) 3 preliminary claim: Liability to represent the expression of a credit extension contract;

Even if the Defendant did not grant the right to conclude a credit extension contract as above to the third company of Japan, the third company of Japan was a comprehensive business trustee of the Defendant, and the Defendant used the name of the Defendant for the third company employees of Japan, thereby allowing the third company employees of Japan to use part of the 14th company floor of the Defendant’s head office as an office without separately indicating the third company name, and continuously paying the amount to the Plaintiff without raising an objection to the details of the transaction through the third company of Japan for more than four to five years. Therefore, there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff has the right to conclude the credit extension contract as above to the third company of Japan.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to repay the loan to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

5) Preliminary Claim 4: employer's responsibility.

The third company is an employee as a comprehensive business trustee of the defendant's points sunset business, and the third company of the third company is engaged in processing transactions while handling the defendant's business, thereby causing damage equivalent to the price of goods to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant bears the employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The transaction between the third party company and the plaintiff and the defendant are merely a contract for supply of goods. Unless the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant, the defendant is not liable for the payment of goods. The third party company, who is liable for the supply of goods, did not supply goods to the plaintiff and deceiving the plaintiff, and only acquired the price of goods by deceiving the plaintiff, and the plaintiff designated the third party company as the purchasing agency upon the request of the third party company, and paid the price of goods in advance.

2) The Plaintiff’s trust is premised on the fact that the goods were actually supplied, and thus, it cannot be protected in the instant case where the goods were not supplied. As long as Nonparty 3, an employee of the Plaintiff, was aware of the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as an ordinary commodity supply contract, the premise of the assertion as an expression agent is not established. Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the third party had justifiable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff was entitled to conclude an agreement on behalf of the Defendant.

3) Finally, the third party company is the plaintiff's sales agent, and the third party company notifies that delivery has been completed, the plaintiff paid the price to the third party company in the case of the third party company, and the third party company constitutes an assistant to perform the plaintiff's duty to deliver the goods to the defendant through the delivery process of goods, and thus the defendant is not liable to use the goods. Even if it is recognized as a snow, the plaintiff was aware that the processing transaction in this case was false circular, or was unaware of it due to gross negligence, so the defendant's liability for damages should be exempted or reduced drastically.

C. Order of determination

Although there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the instant points delivery transaction has been continued between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the third party on the day, the legal nature of the instant points delivery transaction and the legal status of the third party on the points delivery transaction in the instant points delivery transaction, as seen earlier, are the issues of the instant case.

Accordingly, the following is examined: ① the legal nature of the instant points delivery transaction and ② the legal status of the third party in the points delivery transaction in the instant case, and the validity of each claim by the Plaintiff is determined in the order sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Legal nature of this case’s points delivery transactions

In full view of the facts as seen earlier, the evidence as seen earlier, and the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that this case’s points delivery contract is an ordinary commodity supply contract that is separately linked to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s goods supply contract.

1) If the point delivery transaction in the instant case is not a general goods supply contract, but a special sales contract or credit extension contract, which is a non-exclusive type mixed contract as alleged by the Plaintiff, the original and the Defendant is ordinarily prepared to prepare for future disputes in light of the original and the Defendant’s status, transaction period, transaction size, etc., the third party becomes a party to the instant contract, and as a party to the instant point delivery contract, to determine each of the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, and such document has not been prepared.

2) In light of the motive leading up to the conclusion of the instant points delivery transaction, there is no reason to regard it differently from the conventional goods supply contract. As seen earlier, the original and the Defendant concluded the instant business partnership agreement to provide opportunities for delivery to both parties with the intent of mutual cooperation for the purpose of expanding the trading line and expanding sales, and the Defendant did not enter into the instant business partnership agreement for the purpose of facilitating the Defendant’s point delivery business through lending money to the Defendant or the third party, or prior payment or cost-bearing for the third party.

3) The Plaintiff’s employees, who engage in the instant point landing transaction, did not recognize the instant point landing contract as a special sales contract or credit extension contract different from that for ordinary goods supply contracts. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Korea Transport Service and paid the delivery cost. Nonparty 3, the Plaintiff’s employees, who visited the Korea Transport Service Logistics Center and confirmed the goods on a regular basis two to three occasions a month. In the absence of the Plaintiff’s obligation to supply the goods, the Plaintiff bears the delivery cost as above, and the Plaintiff’s employees, etc. did not need to confirm the goods as above.

4) The Plaintiff asserts that the price of goods should be determined if the instant points transaction is a usual commodity supply contract. The Defendant did not order the Plaintiff to specify the object or the supply price, and the Plaintiff does not provide the goods to the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant points offer transaction cannot be deemed a usual commodity supply contract. However, this is due to the fact that the entity in charge of the order and the supply was not actually revealed due to the same act as the third party on the day, and there is no ground to deem that there was no such act or unnecessary in terms of concept or legal assessment. This is within the first three companies for the convenience of business in the instant point landing transaction. This is more clear if it is presented by the third company, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s agency team and ② the department of the Defendant’s agency team, and that there was oral or written order, type of the product, price negotiation, and notification of the supply.

5) The Plaintiff, like an ordinary commodity supply contract, issued a tax invoice under the name of “price for goods” under the instant point delivery transaction to the Defendant.

6) The “advance payment” asserted by the Plaintiff means that the Plaintiff first pays the price to the third party, the purchaser, before receiving the price for the goods from the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff’s final consumer. As long as the supply of the goods supplied to the Plaintiff was completed by the third party, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s special benefits to the Defendant or the third party, to the extent that it is different from the ordinary supply of goods or to evaluate its legal nature differently from the ordinary supply of goods.

B. Legal status of the third party company

1) In light of the legal nature of the instant points delivery transaction as seen earlier, the third party in the point delivery transaction in the instant case is deemed to have the legal status as an agent for the original and Defendant’s duties as follows.

A) Of the instant points in the supply phase of goods, “the identification of the order status of a credit card company member” in the third party is an act on behalf of the Defendant in accordance with each of the instant consignment agreements between the Defendant and the third party in nature (no dispute exists between the parties).

B) Meanwhile, “the business of procuring goods and delivering them to end-consumers” in the first 3rd place is theoretically performed in view of ① the duty to deliver goods to the Plaintiff, ② the duty to deliver goods to the Plaintiff, ③ the duty to deliver goods to the Defendant, ③ the duty to deliver goods to the final consumer, ④ the duty to deliver goods to the Defendant, ④ the duty to deliver goods to the final consumer, ③ the duty to deliver goods to the final consumer. In a conceptually, ① the duty of the third st day, the duty of the Plaintiff, ② the duty of the Plaintiff, ③ the duty of the Defendant, and the duty of the Defendant are classified into the duty of the Defendant, and ③ the duty of the Plaintiff is classified into the duty of the goods supplier, and the Plaintiff bears the final duty of delivery in relation to the Defendant, and the place to which the Defendant is supplied to the Plaintiff may be designated as the domicile of the final consumer

2) Meanwhile, it is reasonable to interpret that the third party's act falls under an employee in the case of an employer's liability under the Civil Act where the other party's act appears to fall under the direction and supervision of the truster if the other party's act continues to fall under the employee (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da780, Feb. 21, 1963, etc.). Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the third party's work falls under the employee of the plaintiff or the defendant's employee within the scope of acting

C. Judgment on the main claim and the main claim

As seen earlier, insofar as the points delivery transaction in the instant case is considered as an ordinary commodity supply contract, as long as there is no order from the Defendant’s intent as to the instant processing transaction and the Plaintiff’s supply of goods accordingly, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the price does not occur.

Therefore, from a different point of view, the Plaintiff’s primary claim and the primary claim for Nos. 1 through 3 are without merit, which are premised on the validity of the instant processing transaction as it falls under a special sales or credit contract, a non-exclusive contract.

D. Judgment on the 4 preliminary claim

1) The Plaintiff is a third party trustee of the Defendant’s comprehensive and exclusive business on the premise that the instant points delivery transaction is a non-exclusive or credit extension contract, which is a non-exclusive license agreement. However, as seen earlier, the instant points delivery contract is an ordinary goods supply contract, and the third party is an employee who performs duties under the Defendant’s direction and supervision in performing duties, such as confirmation of the actual status of the Defendant’s orders, and thus, the Defendant’s liability should also be recognized within the scope of the employer’s liability.

2) Meanwhile, the tort committed by Nonparty 1, the actual representative of Nonparty 3, in the instant case, is “the act of demanding the Plaintiff to pay goods by preparing false documents that he/she supplied goods to the credit card company members.” As seen earlier, the duty to supply goods borne by the third party in the instant case is the business performed by the third party as the Plaintiff’s business agent. The third party’s claim for the price of goods to the Plaintiff is an act under the goods supply contract with the Plaintiff and the third party, and thus, the above act is not directly or indirectly related to the Defendant’s business.

3) In addition, unlike the progressive transaction of the points in this case, the act practically and legally existing in the processing transaction is not “an act of claiming the Plaintiff by the third party, the agent of the Plaintiff, claiming the price of false goods,” and “an act of ordering false goods to the third party, the agent of the Plaintiff, which is the agent of the Plaintiff,” and thus, the Defendant cannot be liable for the employer on this ground. Moreover, the Defendant does not have a legal and contractual obligation to prevent the illegal act of the third party, the agent of the Plaintiff, from being committed.

4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s 4 preliminary claim is without merit to examine the remainder.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims in this case are without merit and they are all dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance which accepted the defendant's appeal and revoked the part against the defendant, and all of the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Il-man (Presiding Judge)

1) The Internet shopping mall operated by credit card companies, etc. shall be pointsed so that customers may use card points accumulated by credit card using credit cards, etc., and the points mall business is the business selling goods or providing services on the points mall.

Note 2) The total amount of settlement amount as stated in the evidence No. 6-1 to No. 6-4 is the amount calculated by subtracting KRW 278,695,762 from the direct trade of the Plaintiff (No. 3 company per day ? Plaintiff’s customer).