1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 500,000,000 with the Plaintiff and the period from October 28, 2016 to March 21, 2017.

1. The Plaintiff (FF Co., Ltd. on August 1, 2013) merged as the parties to the underlying facts;

“Plaintiff” without distinguishing before and after the merger;

(2) A company engaged in the electronic commerce and related distribution business, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) G (hereinafter referred to as “H”) and H (hereinafter referred to as “H”) are companies dealing with steel products, and I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “I”) is companies engaged in wholesale business, electronic commerce business, etc.

3) Defendant B was the person who was the Plaintiff’s B2B (corporate business team), Defendant A was the representative director of Defendant B, Defendant D was the director of Defendant D, and Defendant C was the person who actually controlled the management of G and H. The Plaintiff and G related parties entered into a contract for supply of goods with the content that the Plaintiff would supply steel products to G on June 1, 2012. The Plaintiff and G entered into the contract for supply of goods with the content that the Plaintiff would supply steel products to G. The Plaintiff and G confirmed the quantity of goods and the grounds for disqualification under the contract for supply of goods to the designated place, and the Plaintiff determined to issue the receipt certificate without any error, and pay the price of goods on the 25th of the following month on the delivery date of the goods. The Plaintiff on June 13, 2012 (hereinafter “Spanco”).

For a year, a contract was entered into with the content that purchases steel products of KRW 2 billion.

Then, from July 6, 2012 to October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff received orders for steel products equivalent to KRW 2,012,960,984 on three occasions from G, G, and supplied them to G.

Defendant C and E, who participated in I and H, find the J director around the end of June 2012, and there are cases of the transaction between the Plaintiff and steel products, and if I participate, the sales amount may increase and the commission may increase more than 4%.

H has a code qualification to trade sco and goods, and the Plaintiff is a K Group subsidiary, and there is no problem in recovering the price.

“I explained to this effect,” and Defendant .