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

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of selling sound vibration sports equipment and recruiting chain stores, etc., and the company B (the trade name before being changed on August 11, 2015) is a company C; hereinafter “non-party company”).

(2) On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a general sales agreement with the non-party company to receive and sell the product “E of the Mad-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

However, the non-party company did not supply 46 out of the product of this case ordered by the plaintiff.

3) On May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party company as Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap40402, which sought payment of KRW 86,40,000 (=3600,000 x 46) to the non-party company on the grounds of the cancellation of the said sales contract. As to the lawsuit, the said court rendered a judgment that “the non-party company shall pay to the Plaintiff 86,40,000 won and interest thereon at each rate of KRW 20% per annum from April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014” (hereinafter “related judgment”).

(B) The above judgment was pronounced and the above judgment became final and conclusive. (B) D, who was in office as the representative director of the non-party company incorporated the defendant company for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retailing sound equipment on July 4, 2013, while the lawsuit mentioned in the preceding paragraph was pending. (3) 【Ground for recognition” did not have any dispute, and the purport of Gap 1 through 6 (each of the entries and arguments including virtual numbers), as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion.