1. Defendant H: (a) 226,380,285 won to the Plaintiff L&C Co., Ltd.; (b) 64,397,300 won to the Plaintiff; and (c) 48,106.

Defendant H is an individual entrepreneur who had received goods, etc. from the Plaintiffs while operating the individual workplace called “I” as to the claim against Defendant H.

Defendant H was supplied with goods or received transportation services from the Plaintiffs as follows, and did not pay the price.

Plaintiff

D&S Co., Ltd.: supply equivalent to KRW 371,637,235 from November 9, 2012 to July 31, 2013, and supply of KRW 226,380,285 to Plaintiff A (J): From March 11, 2013

8. Plaintiff B (K) not paid amounting to KRW 64,397,300 until April 30, 2013 and the same year;

5. Plaintiff C (L): Amounting to KRW 50,70,700 on March 31, 201, the unpaid amount of KRW 48,106,70 on March 30, 201, the unpaid amount of KRW 28,032,643 on March 30, 2013;

4. 30. 30. 4

5. Plaintiff E (N) unpaid at KRW 42,875,800 over three occasions, and at KRW 22,92,50: From December 31, 2012 to August 31, 2013, Plaintiff F (O) unpaid at KRW 13,310,00 for a total of five occasions: The amount equivalent to KRW 24,239,60 from November 20 to April 20, 2013; the amount equivalent to KRW 10,367,00 for a claim against Defendant G is the spouse of Defendant H, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for judgment on the claim against Defendant G is jointly and severally liable to pay the price to the Plaintiffs since the Plaintiff’s former spouse was operated with Defendant H., and the Plaintiff operated the aforementioned goods with Defendant H.

In addition, under the circumstances where Defendant H had the obligation to pay the above price of goods to the Plaintiffs, it deducted the assets from the method of mixing with Defendant G in order to avoid the obligation to the Plaintiffs, which constitutes a fraudulent act.

Judgment

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs' assertion, namely, defendant G is a joint operator of I or a fraudulent act.

Therefore, all claims against Defendant G cannot be accepted.

In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant H are justified, and all claims against Defendant G are without merit.