1. The plaintiffs' lawsuit against defendant C is dismissed.

2. Defendant D’s KRW 95,772,100 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff A.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) E engaged in the furniture manufacturing business, E runs the business of “F” for the purpose of household manufacturing on January 1, 2003, and established G Co., Ltd. (1) around July 31, 2010.

Defendant D worked as an employee of F’s production department, and the incorporation of G was registered as an internal director of G Co., Ltd.

E registered Defendant D as the representative director of G Co., Ltd. on December 23, 2011.

(2) On December 23, 2011, E established Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) as G G’s permissible branch, and registered as Defendant D’s representative on January 1, 2012.

E, on October 15, 2012, runs a household manufacturing business by opening a “H” business with the purpose of household manufacturing in Defendant D’s name.

B. On June 29, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs E and G with the Suwon District Court Branch Branch of 201Kadan19385, and filed a lawsuit for the purchase price claim against the Defendants E and G, and on June 29, 2011, the said court rendered a judgment without holding any pleadings stating that “E shall pay to Plaintiff B the money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 17, 2011 to the date of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(2) The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against E and G seeking a joint payment of the price of goods (U.S. District Court 2012Gahap17827). On September 13, 2013, the said court: “E has abused its corporate personality to use F’s human and physical infrastructure for the purpose of evading its obligations, and has de facto control over them by establishing a company that uses F’s human and physical infrastructure. Therefore, the assertion that G has a separate legal personality against E is not permissible under the principle of good faith. Therefore, E’s assertion that E has a separate legal personality against the creditor is not permissible, and E’s obligee’s claim that “A and E may seek a performance of obligations against the Plaintiff jointly and severally.”