1. The plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendant B are all dismissed.

2. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall be the plaintiffs.

1. Determination as to the primary claim against Defendant B

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they enter into an entrustment contract with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant A") for the transportation business, and they are co-owners who enter their own trucks into Defendant A.

Defendant A kept the part corresponding to the value-added tax among the transport revenues acquired while carrying on the transportation business as a truck for which the plaintiffs joined, but paid the value-added tax for the plaintiffs. In addition, Defendant A did not pay it at the relevant tax office.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered damages equivalent to the above value-added tax.

In addition, the plaintiff 1 to 26 entered the truck owned by the defendant A, and paid the deposit money to the defendant A for the use of the number plate for the business of the defendant A.

However, since the above plaintiffs no longer use the business license plate of defendant A, the defendant A is obligated to return the above deposits to the above plaintiffs.

Defendant B, while taking over a truck that the plaintiffs joined from Defendant A, took over the obligation related to the value-added tax and security deposit of Defendant A, and Defendant B is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the value-added tax and refund the security deposit.

B. First of all, according to the health account of Defendant B’s acceptance of Defendant A’s obligation, each entry of Party A’s No. 8 (including the branch number), and some testimony of Party C, the following facts: (a) the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant B, who was the former representative director of the Defendant A in relation to the failure to pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax at the tax office (hereinafter “instant criminal case”); and (b) C made an oral agreement with the investigative agency as to the value-added tax on September 2013 and October 12, 2013 at the investigation agency as to the value-added tax on September 2013; (c) the testimony made to the same effect in this court; and (c) C and Defendant B.