2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Order of the court of first instance.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a merchant who engages in the business of manufacturing and selling in the form of a trade name “D,” and the Defendants are the merchants who engage in wholesale and retail business of safety goods, etc. under the trade name “E.”

The Plaintiff received orders from the Defendants and the Defendants, and continued to engage in commercial transactions in a way that the Plaintiff directly supplies franchising to companies designated by the Plaintiff. The Defendants did not pay only part of the franchising cost incurred until July 19, 2013, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 17,198,90. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the franchising cost and the damages for delay.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant B asserted that he was not a joint business operator of “E”, and only an employee engaged in ordinary accounting affairs under the direction of Defendant C, and that Defendant C did not have a duty to pay the price to the Plaintiff. Defendant C transacted with Defendant B, the husband of Defendant B, not the Plaintiff, who was the husband of the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant C asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is unjust

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 1-2, No. 1-2, No. 2, No. 6, and No. 7, the Plaintiff supplied a unification to an enterprise designated by the Defendants on several occasions at the request of the Defendants during the period from January 201 to July 19, 2013. The Defendants recognized the fact that the amount of the unpaid goods out of the total amount of the total amount of goods generated until July 19, 2013 was 17,198,90, and the following circumstances recognized by the Defendants comprehensively taking into account the purport of each of the above evidence. In other words, the Defendants were registered as a joint business proprietor under the business registration certificate, and the Defendant appears to be an employee of the Defendant C in the form of Defendant B, or in substance, it appears that the Plaintiff independently deposited and received the said goods in the name of “E” with another company, and thus, the obligation to pay the said goods.