1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 49,015,471 as well as 20% per annum from April 11, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the business of supplying Chinese-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu D Prize with the trade name of “E”, “E”, “F”, and “Seoul Jung-gu G2 floor on September 4, 2010,” and Defendant B registered the trade name under Defendant C’s name as “F” and “Seoul Jung-gu G2 floor on September 4, 2010, and operated the Korean-style restaurant from around that time.

B. Upon Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff supplied the scrap to the said F during the period from May 2012 to June 17, 2013, and the unpaid amount is KRW 39,015,471.

C. On the other hand, on December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20 million to Defendant B and demanded the payment to the above Defendant several times, but only received reimbursement of KRW 10 million among them.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; the fact that the defendant is the person; the entries in Gap 1-6 and 13; the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B is a party to the transaction with the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is a person who lends the business name to Defendant B. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 39,015,471 and the delay damages thereof, and Defendant B is also liable to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the loan and the delay damages.

On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that he operated the F cafeteria jointly with the defendant C, and as the party to the transaction, the plaintiff seems to be responsible for the F cafeteria. However, the plaintiff's above assertion that the defendant C operated the F cafeteria as the defendant B as the partnership with the defendant, is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion and its determination, Defendant B entirely delegated the issue of food materials supply to H with respect to the operation of F. However, in collusion with the above H, the Plaintiff supplied the above Defendant at a price of at least 1.5 times or more than the market price, and the difference between KRW 300-4 million per month during the transaction period.