1. Defendant A’s KRW 67,262,50 for the Plaintiff and the following: 6% per annum from September 28, 2012 to May 13, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant A agreed to purchase fishery products (dong, etc.) and sell them after the processing thereof by Defendant A. After the lapse of 45 days from the date of delivery of fishery products from the Plaintiff, Defendant A made an agreement that Defendant A would bear the cost of processing fishery products and have the sales proceeds by paying to the Plaintiff an amount calculated by adding a certain fee (two million won per container) to the price of the above fishery products.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

The Plaintiff purchased three fishery products equivalent to KRW 81,862,50 in quantity from friendly trade, etc. in accordance with the instant contract and delivered them to the Defendant A on July 2012. From July 2010 to October 2010, the Plaintiff received KRW 20,60,000 from the Defendant A out of the price of fishery products.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of the recognition as above, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 67,262,500 (the purchase price of fishery products KRW 81,862,500,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 28, 2012 to May 13, 2014, the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, which is 45 days after the expiration of 45 days from the last delivery date of fishery products, to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant B 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant A is Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”)

As the real representative director of the company, all businesses, such as food materials and the sale of dried materials, were comprehensively controlled, and the certificate of storage prepared and delivered by the defendant A to the plaintiff also includes the purport that he is the actual representative director of the defendant B, and the defendant A responded to the purport that he is the actual representative of the defendant B at the time of investigating the case of fraud.