1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the husband of Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon who runs the main household manufacturing business, etc. with the trade name of the main household and parts-related wholesale and retail business, and C, from Seosan E, with the trade name of “F”, and the Defendant is the husband of C.

B. From July 7, 2015 to June 8, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the same household to the above company as C’s representative several times. Of the price of the goods, KRW 15,043,321 has not yet been settled.

(including a sum of KRW 10 million). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 4 and Eul evidence 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant and C jointly operated the above enterprise, and the defendant also has the responsibility to repay the unpaid amount of goods.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he was in a strict division of work with C as an intermediate manager at the above enterprise, and that the defendant and C are in a marital relationship, but the defendant and C are not in a transaction to which they are entitled to the right of normal family affairs between husband and wife, and thus they cannot be held jointly and severally liable to the defendant.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no dispute between the parties as to whether the Defendant may be recognized as a joint operator of the above company, and whether the Defendant, as a technician of household production, has been in practical charge of household production and business, and goods delivery as a technician of the above company.

However, while the defendant worked as an intermediate manager of the above company, he has not been paid the benefits accordingly, and has maintained the community life with C as well as C's profits.

Therefore, it is reasonable to determine that the defendant jointly operated the above enterprise with C, and therefore, the defendant also sought the amount of KRW 15,043,321 (the amount equivalent to the face value of the bill disposed of to the plaintiff as the price for the goods) that is unpaid to the plaintiff as well as the final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case (the certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation) from May 22, 2018.