1. The plaintiff, the defendant corporation Eul, the defendant corporation Eul, and the defendant corporation C, the 89,580,000 won and each of them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company wholesaleing the task in the D market, and the Defendants are companies selling the task in the name of “E”.

B. From April 2015 to October 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendants through F, an employee of the Defendants, to the Defendants. At present, the amount of goods not paid by Defendant B is KRW 100,708,000, and the amount of goods not paid by Defendant C is KRW 89,580,000.

The details of goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants (the transaction date, transaction items, claim amount, and serial number) are as shown in attached Tables 1 and 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of determination, Defendant B, Inc., is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 100,708,000, and the amount of KRW 89,580,000 for the unpaid amount of goods, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 28, 2016 to the date of full payment, following the last delivery of the written application for modification of the purport of the claim and cause of the instant case.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that, since the Plaintiff’s representative G and employees F of the Defendants issued a false transaction statement by entering the items that were not actually traded in the transaction list at a higher price than the actual transaction price, the Plaintiff could not believe the transaction statement submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could not verify the quantity of the excess and the amount of the outstanding amount that the Plaintiff actually supplied to the Defendants, and that the Plaintiff had a large amount of money, prepared a false transaction statement with the F and had an illegal interest, and thus, the Plaintiff could not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

On the other hand, the testimony F, which seems consistent with the defendants' assertion, was prepared in court differently from the actual evidence, and the statement F, which is a part of the testimony, was prepared in court.