1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, each entry in Gap evidence 8, and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company established on January 26, 2010 for the purpose of the friendly meat and the wholesale and retail business, and C (the trade name was changed from “Stock Company D” to “Stock Company C” on June 15, 2012; hereinafter “instant company”) is a stock company incorporated on February 1, 2012 for the purpose of the wholesale and retail business of livestock products, and Defendant A was in office as an internal director of the instant company from February 22, 2012 to June 15, 2012, and Defendant B was in office as the representative director of the instant company from June 15, 2012 to June 15, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff’s Customer Director: (a) supplied livestock products equivalent to KRW 45,527,534 in aggregate to D during the period from March 15, 2012 to May 6, 2012; (b) the supply price of livestock products to be paid out of the supply price of livestock products from D; and (c) the supply price of livestock products to be paid out of D at present is KRW 36,227,534; and (d) the business operator number of D is indicated as “E,” “E,” “the representative, and address” as “Seoul Seongbuk-gu F.

C. The business registration number of “D” was closed on May 15, 2012 to Defendant A’s personal business registration number.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff is deemed to be the company related to the instant case from around 2011 to the Madrid system (hereinafter “instant company”).

() A livestock product supply contract was entered into with the instant company, and a large number of goods were supplied on credit to the instant company. However, the instant company, after being supplied with goods from the Plaintiff, caused substantial damage to the Plaintiff on the wind that the Plaintiff goes bankrupt. 2) In such circumstances, the Defendant Company obtained the Plaintiff’s trust by having access to the Plaintiff, and used it, entered into a livestock product supply contract with the instant company, and the Plaintiff entered into a livestock product supply contract between March 15, 2012 and May 6, 2012, and KRW 45,527,534 in total.