1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part between Plaintiff W and Defendant C, including a claim added by this court.

1. Case summary

A. 1) The Plaintiffs are Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) as the trucking transport business entity.

(2) The co-defendant D of the first instance court is a co-defendant E, the actual representative of Defendant C at the time of entering into each of the above contracts (on April 24, 2013, resignation on November 24, 2014). Defendant G is a co-defendant E of the first instance court, the actual representative of Defendant C at the time of entering into each of the above contracts (hereinafter referred to as “Z”). Defendant G is a person (on April 21, 2014, registration as corporate injury) who actually represents the Z (on April 21, 2014, resignation).

Defendant H is the actual representative of AA (AB on November 6, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “AA”) and Co-Defendant I of the first instance trial was an employee of AA.

All these are advertising the terms of the contract, the land entry contract, and the cargo transport contract, and after collecting the land owners, they are mediating each of the above contracts and being paid part of the vehicle acceptance money as the job placement fee.

B. The reasoning for the lower court regarding this part of the judgment, including the land entry contract and the structure of the cargo transport contract related to the instant case, is the same as the entry from the lower part of the 10th to the 4th part of the 12th part of the first instance judgment, and thus, it is tenable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

C. The reasons for the conclusion of each of the instant contracts by Plaintiff J and K, and K, and K are as listed below, in sequence or at the same time, the Codefendant D, E, and Defendant G in the first instance trial, and as stated below, “Modern Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Modern Co., Ltd.”).

(i) the term “the advertisement related to the modern iron of this case” refers to the advertisement related to the modern iron of this case, i.e., the fixed quantity, the intra-company framework (the fixed line, the 5-year guarantee, the sales to the borrower beyond the business use, the return of the number plate or the guarantee of cash payment of 25 million won to the borrower after the expiration of the contract.

and directly with Defendant C when acquiring a vehicle owned by them or a vehicle introduced by them.