1. Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed C, and D jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 31,233,90,00 and the Plaintiff’s aforementioned amount.

1. Basic facts

A. The Selection C and D have operated the instant restaurant jointly with the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Appointed Party”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendants”), together with the name of the business operator of the F cafeteria located in No. 105 of the building 105, Nam-gu, Incheon (hereinafter referred to as the “instant cafeteria”). (b)

The Plaintiff supplied food materials and other goods to the instant restaurant from December 2, 2013 to February 2014 (hereinafter “instant period”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-6, entry of Eul evidence 2-6 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that he did not receive 31,23,90 won for the goods supplied during the instant period.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that H, a relative member of G representative director of the Plaintiff Company, was operating the instant restaurant in the same business with the Defendant (Appointed Party), and that the Plaintiff only asserted as if he supplied goods to H and the instant restaurant and did not supply the actual goods.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, the plaintiff supplied food materials, etc. equivalent to KRW 31,233,90 to the restaurant of this case during the instant period, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence are acknowledged: the plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice equivalent to the above amount; the defendants filed a value-added tax return without raising any objection against the issuance of the above electronic tax invoice; the defendants continued to operate the restaurant of this case from Dec. 2, 2011 to Mar. 2014; in light of the fact that the business of the restaurant of this case was conducted, the above recognition is insufficient to reverse the above recognition based on each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 submitted by the defendant.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendants, who jointly operated the instant restaurant, jointly operated the instant restaurant, pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.