1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from May 30, 2012 to June 25, 2015, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2009, the Plaintiff registered and owned the vessel C (the type of vessel: power-driven vessel, the name of fishing vessel, the name of vessel C, the vessel material: FRP, the gross tonnage of 4.9 tons: D: fishing vessel number: D; hereinafter referred to as “C”) under the name of E, the wife at the port of registry, and the Defendant registered the vessel F (the type of vessel: power-driven vessel, the fishing vessel name: G: the name of the vessel: the G, the vessel: the G material: the FRP, the gross tonnage of 4.91 tons, the fishing vessel number of H: hereinafter referred to as “F”).

B. On September 2009, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Do Governor for the coastal transit fishery (hereinafter “permission for coastal transit fishery”) and permission from the Do Governor for the coastal coastal fishing K (hereinafter “coastal fishing permit”) with respect to C, and the Defendant obtained a permit for the coastal transit fishery for the coastal transit fishery (hereinafter “coastal complex permission”) with respect to F.

C. Pursuant to Articles 16 and 18 of the Regulations on the Permission for and Report of Fisheries, the exchange of fishery permits between the above fishing vessels is possible in cases where the owners of both fishing vessels are the same. On September 2009, the Plaintiff intended to sell C around September 2009, and the purchaser wishes to obtain permission for a coastal complex, and at the time the purchaser registered C with F with permission for a coastal complex, which had been holding the F with permission for a coastal complex, once transferred to the Defendant’s wife, made the owner the same, and changed the C with F with permission for a coastal complex, and then the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to sell C with F with permission for a coastal complex. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested “F with new permission for a coastal complex and coastal network,” and the Defendant proposed an exchange to the effect that “the Plaintiff would return permission for a coastal complex and coastal network at any time when it is necessary” (hereinafter “this case’s consent”).