1. Defendant C’s KRW 59,801,70 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from July 27, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (the Plaintiff’s representative) is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s agent F the price for yellow attitudes supplied to E on December 12, 2012 under the product long-term supply contract concluded between D and E, based on the order of the Defendant C. The Plaintiff’s agent under the product long-term supply contract concluded on December 12, 2012. The Defendant B, registered as the representative on the E’s business registration certificate at the time of the conclusion of the above contract and the supply of yellow negligence under the above contract, is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 59,801,700 and the delay

(2) According to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, a person who permits another person to run a business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable with another person to pay the third person, who trades by mistake as the owner of the business.

However, according to the transaction circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff appears to have been sufficiently aware that he lent the name of the business operator to Defendant B. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was made to the effect that Defendant B, the husband of Defendant B, was the actual operator of E at the time of the transaction, the Plaintiff’s mistake of “G” as the actual operator of the Plaintiff’s business, and cannot be deemed to have supplied Defendant B with the intention to make a transaction with “Defendant B” by mistake as the business owner of “Defendant B,” and thus, Defendant B cannot be held liable for the nominal lender’s liability under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

(G) Even if the plaintiff's assertion was made to the effect that "Defendant B" and "C were to mislead the plaintiff to operate E as a partnership business," not "G", there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff had to believe that "Defendant B" and "C were to operate E as a partnership business at the time of the supply of yellow attitudes to "E," and therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is going beyond any other point.