1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's selective claims added in the trial are all dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was engaged in active fish sales business under the trade name of “D fishery,” and E was engaged in active fish retail business under the trade name of “FF fishery,” and E was supplied with active fish by the Plaintiff for several years.

B. On September 18, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against “B” seeking payment of the active purchase price as Head of Changwon District Court Branch Decision 2009Da8887. On July 27, 2010, the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff to the effect that he/she recognized the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price amounting to KRW 51,106,000 against “B”. The judgment was finalized on October 4, 2011 through the appellate court (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Na9140, Jun. 16, 201) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da58374, Sept. 29, 2011).

C. Meanwhile, around January 12, 2009, the Defendant registered the above E’s children as the trade name “G fishery” and operated active fish wholesale and retail business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim for the purchase price

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is a joint operator with E and E. The Plaintiff is KRW 51,106,000 for the purchase price that was not supplied with active terms to E. The Defendant, as a child of E, engaged in active fish and retail business jointly with E, and the Defendant is jointly responsible for the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant is the joint operator with E.

The following circumstances, which can be recognized by evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and 4, are as follows, namely, that the defendant is the son of E, that the defendant was issued a tax invoice under the defendant's name, and that the location of E and the defendant's location are the same, are insufficient to recognize that the defendant jointly engaged in active fish transactions with the plaintiff E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the evidence and evidence mentioned above 1-1, 2, 5-1, 5-4, 5-1, 6-1, 2, 7 and 9 are described in Eul evidence 6-1, 6-2, 7 and 9.