2...

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B is the representative of the clothing sales company “C” and entered into a contract on consignment sales of goods, such as clothing, supplied by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on November 2008. From December 2, 2010 to February 2, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate to confirm that the consignment sales amount, excluding consignment commission fees, between February 2, 2010 and February 201, was KRW 31,474,540, and thus, the Selection B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the consignment sales or loan, and the delay damages therefrom.

B. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the action against the Appointed B.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court 201Da104492, Dec. 6, 2011, and the same court decided to authorize the rehabilitation plan on March 9, 2012 (as a result of the repayment plan, the plaintiff will pay 5,478,00 won per month for 91,300 won per month for 60 months). The Appointer Eul reported the claim that the plaintiff seeks as rehabilitation claim. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim is a rehabilitation claim arising from the causes before the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure and the decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan becomes final after reporting the rehabilitation claim as a rehabilitation claim, the plaintiff can recover his claim according to the repayment plan as well as seek the implementation of the plan separately. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the Appointer B is unlawful.

2. As to the claim against the defendant (appointed party)

A. (1) As to the cause of the claim, the Defendant (Appointed Party) operated the “C” under the name of the wife B, and entered into a consignment contract with the Plaintiff on November 2008 and received the clothing, etc. supplied by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff via online shopping mall.