A. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff supplied the amount equivalent to KRW 57,819,058 (including value-added tax) of automobile parts to the defendant Company B (hereinafter "Defendant Company") from June 2015 to October 2015, and did not receive KRW 24,728,358 out of the price.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 24,728,358 won and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 3, 2016 to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, pursuant to the plaintiff's claim.

B. The defendant company's argument regarding the defendant company's assertion is merely a brokerage of transaction between the plaintiff and E, and is not a party to the contract for the supply of automobile parts with the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's delivery of automobile parts to the defendant company is as mentioned above, and it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion only with the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 5. The above argument by the defendant company is without merit.

2. The part of the claim against the defendant C and D

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant company is merely an individual company of the defendants denied legal personality, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the price of goods to the plaintiff.

B. Where the judgment company has the external form of a legal entity, but it merely takes the form of a legal entity, and in substance, it is merely a private enterprise of another person behind the legal entity or is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of the law to the person behind the legal entity, the company and the person behind the legal entity even though it is an act of the legal entity.