A. This part of the judgment of the court is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for any additional determination below.

B. The defendant asserts that this court is further claiming as follows.

1) The Defendant Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) in the first instance trial.

(2) Although the Defendant did not bear the goods payment obligation against the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the actual representative of the Plaintiff, could not bear the obligation arising from the operation of the legal entity. However, as seen earlier, the instant trade agreement was concluded by the Defendant as an individual, and it was not concluded as a representative representing the Defendant, a legal entity separate from the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant, the principal agent of the instant trade agreement, did not bear the goods payment obligation against the Plaintiff, and there is no legal basis for the Defendant, the agent of the instant trade agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit. 2) Since the Plaintiff entered into a trade agreement with the first instance joint Defendant A (hereinafter “A”), and the Defendant established the Plaintiff’s goods supply company I (hereinafter “I”) for the said business prior to the Plaintiff’s supply, either A or I is entitled to bear the goods payment obligation against the Plaintiff as a party to the goods supply transaction.

However, according to the instant trade agreement between the Defendant and A, D, the actual operator of A, requested the Plaintiff to import the clothing for the implementation thereof.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 7, the "Joint Agreement on the Production and Sale of Clothing" as of February 24, 2012 concerning the instant trade agreement was prepared, but it can be recognized that the signature and seal of A and the Defendant was not affixed.