1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is dismissed in entirety.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of manufacturing bedclothes-related products with the trade name called E in Seoul Jung-gu, and the Defendant is a person who was supplied by the Plaintiff with goods, such as brus, etc.

B. The Defendant’s attempted amount after June 3, 2008 on the Plaintiff’s account book is KRW 12,530,000 as of November 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant outstanding amount”).

C. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of demand for the payment of the unpaid amount to the Defendant and the selector for the payment of the outstanding amount. On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit (request for payment order).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 11, the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant and the appointed party, who are married couple from June 3, 2008 to November 26, 2014, who engaged in the same business, and was not paid the outstanding amount.

② Even if the Defendant and the Appointor did not work together, the Appointor, as the Defendant’s wife, is jointly and severally liable for the outstanding amount to be borne by the Defendant for the pertinent goods supply transaction, which is a legal act relating to daily household affairs.

③ The Defendant and the selector who has a right of representation in daily home affairs renounced extinctive prescription benefits on the instant outstanding claim.

Therefore, the defendant and the designated parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant and the Appointor’s assertion ① is not a partner, and the Plaintiff’s counterpart is the Defendant.

② around 2010, the Defendant was exempted from KRW 10 million out of the outstanding amounts in this case by the Plaintiff.

③ The obligation of the outstanding amount in this case was extinguished by prescription as the obligation prior to 2009.

3. Determination

A. (1) First, as to whether the Defendant and the Selection work together, each description of Gap evidence of Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 through 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to whether the Defendant and the Selection work together;