1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,050,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 7, 2015 to November 8, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who registered the business of “D” under the name of his/her spouse, and actually operates the above business. The Defendant is a person who operates the above company as an internal director of “E” corporation, which is a distributor of industrial machinery.

The purchase price from the purchaser at the time of the purchase (cost) 1. F. F. F. 240,000,000 on Feb. 5, 2012, 2012. F. F. 280,000,000 on Nov. 12, 2012, 200; 220,000,000,000,00 by the machine learning center (No. 12, 260,000,00 on Dec. 10, 2012; 3,00,00 the machine learning center (No. 8,000 on Dec. 26, 2012) (No. 20,000,000 on Jun. 26, 2013).

B. The Defendant purchased and sold the following industrial machinery in the name of E:

(A) The term "Ginch theory" means the Co., Ltd., and the term "Gink Trade" means the Eink Trade Co., Ltd., and the term "Eink Trade Co., Ltd."; hereinafter referred to as "Sink machinery" as the machinery listed in the following table.

On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff issued to E a tax invoice of KRW 12,00,000 (value-added tax 1,200,000) (value-added tax) and KRW 18,50,000 (value-added tax 1,850,000) on March 29, 2013 (value-added tax 1,850,00) (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”).

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 7-9, 11-15 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff 1 suggested that the Plaintiff engaged in a partnership business with the Plaintiff using an exclusive transactional relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. From September 2012, the Plaintiff accepted the foregoing, and concluded a profit margin one-half in the event that the Plaintiff purchases machinery from the upper Jink loan, or sells machinery to the upper Jink loan even if the Plaintiff’s money was invested, if the Plaintiff purchased the machinery from the upper Jink loan, or sold it to the upper Jink loan.

However, since the defendant did not pay the profit according to the business agreement, the business relationship was broken down around May 2013.

Therefore, it is true.