1. All of the plaintiff's claims are 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 13, 14, Eul evidence 1 through 5, the purport of all pleadings);

A. The director of the production team of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) operated by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) was the director of the production team, and around May 30, 2006, determined that the goods owned by the Defendant Co., Ltd. were arbitrarily deducted and sold “E” to the Plaintiff operating the Plaintiff, and on the same day, sold the Plaintiff, by cutting off the electric lamps lamps which amounting to KRW 650,80,00 from the Defendant Co., Ltd’s warehouse and selling them to the Plaintiff from that time to August 8, 2008.

B. D above:

As described in paragraph (1), continuous transactions between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were made between the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff’s cell phone, and the amount of goods was sold to less than half of the amount of the previous transaction, and the tax invoice was issued in the name of the other company.

C. D above:

The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for August 18, 2013 with prison labor for the same criminal facts as described in the subsection (2012 high-ranking 1434) from the Goyang-gu District Court (2012 high-ranking 1434).

(hereinafter “Related Cases”) D.

The Defendants demanded damages in relation to the pertinent case to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff accepted the Defendants’ proposal and transferred KRW 20 million to Defendant B on September 22, 2008, and issued promissory notes with face value of KRW 44,422,500 to the Defendant Company as the payee and notarized.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. With respect to the relevant case, the Defendants filed a complaint against the Plaintiff for the acquisition of stolen goods, and threatened the Plaintiff with the intention to suspend the supply of stolen goods in the future. The Defendants mobilized the employees of the Company D, etc., thereby leading the Plaintiff to attack and deceiving the Plaintiff.

As a result, the Plaintiff has no choice but to send the goods to India.