1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 32,000,000 to the Plaintiff and Defendant C with respect thereto from August 6, 2015, and Defendant D with respect thereto on August 6, 2015.

1. The fact that Defendant C’s claim against Defendant C is provided a disturbance from December 13, 2012 to February 7, 2013 while operating “E” and the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 32,00,000 out of the amount of the goods. There is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay 20% per annum from August 6, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, under Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Regulations on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 3(1) main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 3(1) main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015 and enforced October 1, 2015), and damages for delay calculated at 15% per annum under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Claim against Defendant D

A. Defendant D, which caused the claim, is obligated to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff received a disturbance from the Plaintiff while operating the “E” with Defendant C.

Even if Defendant D had not operated “E” with Defendant C,

Even if the name holder of the commercial law is liable for the defendant C's obligation to pay the above goods, he shall be jointly and severally liable.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant D operated the “E” with Defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

However, according to the evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole argument by Defendant D, it can be acknowledged that Defendant C had operated “E” under the name of Defendant D by lending the name of Defendant C. Thus, Defendant D is liable for non-joint and several liability with respect to the above product payment obligation of Defendant C.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da91886 Decided April 14, 2011, etc.