1. Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s right to permit trucking transport business as indicated in the attached list in the name of Defendant C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative of D Co., Ltd. operating a large truck sales business, and Defendant B is the actual representative of Defendant E Co., Ltd., and Defendant C is the mother of Defendant B.

B. On December 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to transfer the individual trucking transport business rights (hereinafter “instant business rights”) listed in the separate sheet with the Defendants (hereinafter “instant business rights”) to the Defendant C, and transfer the business rights under the name of the Defendant C, and obtain the Plaintiff’s business license (G; hereinafter “business rights subject to exchange”) for E Co., Ltd. in which the Defendant B actually operates, and to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9.5 million, equivalent to the difference between the two business rights (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”).

C. On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 9.5 million from Defendant B pursuant to the instant exchange contract, and transferred the instant business title to Defendant C around December 28, 2016 upon the request.

On the other hand, the representative of the corporation E in the name of Defendant B, who is the wife of Defendant B. As a dispute arises in the division of property in the process of the divorce between Defendant B and H, H refused to transfer the name of the business right (G) subject to exchange to the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the business right (G) subject to exchange was transferred to I around March 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 5, 6, and 8, the witness J and K's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the facts of recognition as the parties to the instant exchange contract, namely, the Defendants are both mother and mother, and Defendant C’s name transfer of business title, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the instant exchange contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

B. On December 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendants enter into the instant exchange contract.