2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor manufactured various English teaching tools and educational materials and sold them to child-care centers, kindergartens, etc. The conjunctive Defendant operated the branch offices of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s C area from 2009 to 2011, and the primary Defendant operates D kindergarten at three-dimensional cities.

B. If the conjunctive Defendant received an order from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor for the teaching materials produced and sold by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor from the child care centers and kindergartens in C, etc., and delivered them to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor sent the teaching materials to each child care center, etc., and thereafter, traded in the manner that the conjunctive Defendant received the teaching materials from each child care center, etc., and then traded the remaining amount after deducting the prescribed fees.

다. 주위적 피고는 2011. 2. 21.경 예비적 피고에게 2011년도 1학기 샤샤교재를 주문하였고, 예비적 피고는 원고보조참가인에게 샤샤교재를 배송하여 줄 것을 신청하였다. 라.

On February 21, 2011, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor sent teaching materials equivalent to KRW 9,380,000 to the primary Defendant.

E. On March 23, 2011, the primary Defendant paid KRW 5,450,000 to the primary Defendant as the amount of teaching material for the first semester in 2011.

F. On December 23, 2011, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor transferred KRW 9,380,000 of the teaching material price claim for the first semester against the primary Defendant in 2011 to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant around the same day.

G. On April 26, 2012, the primary Defendant paid KRW 3,930,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6 through 8, Gap's evidence Nos. 16, Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 5 and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim against the main defendant

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Intervenor directly provided teaching materials in 2011 to the primary Defendant.