1. Defendant B shall pay 1,724,600 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from May 30, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Part concerning a claim for the price of goods against a shop;

A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the basic facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff supplied goods to the first floor shop in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, where Defendant C is the business owner, up to April 27, 2009, to the first floor shop in Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, where Defendant C is the business owner, and the Plaintiff was not paid the price claim of KRW 28,550,02

B. The plaintiff asserts that the actual operator of the above commercial building is the defendant B, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount of KRW 28,550,025 to the plaintiff.

C. 1) First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the actual operator of the above commercial building is Defendant B, and there is no reason for the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B related to the above goods payment claim. 2) Meanwhile, Defendant C asserted that the above goods payment claim has expired after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations. Since the above goods payment claim is related to the price of the goods sold by the merchant, the short-term extinctive prescription of three years is applied pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. According to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s payment of part of the above goods payment claim was around October 201, according to the record No. 1, it is evident that the lawsuit in this case had already been filed three years after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations from that time, and thus, Defendant C’s aforementioned objection to the above goods payment claim has already expired before the lawsuit in this case was filed.

3. Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for the above amount of KRW 28,550,025 is without merit.

2. From February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of the goods supplied by Defendant B for the operation of Defendant B’s self-market does not have any dispute between the parties. Thus, Defendant B from May 30, 2015, on the following day after the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods supplied for the operation of Defendant B’s self-market.