1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 63,583,248 and Defendant B with respect thereto from November 25, 2017, and Defendant C with respect thereto.

1. The facts of the basis are: (a) Defendant B was registered as a business entity engaging in petroleum retail business under the trade name “D” around March 19, 2013; (b) the Plaintiff supplied petroleum to “D” from July 2013 to June 2016, and the outstanding amount is at least 63,583,248 won (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”); and (c) Defendant C, the father of Defendant B, can be recognized by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to each of the entries in subparagraphs A and 5 (including each of the numbers).

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The main point of the parties’ assertion (i.e., Defendant B is the business owner of “D” and is a party to the goods supply contract, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the price of the instant goods.

Even if Defendant B is not an actual business owner, but a mere nominal name holder, Defendant B is a person who has permitted the business by using his name, and is liable for the nominal name holder to the Plaintiff who trades the Defendant as the business owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act. Therefore, Defendant B still has the obligation to pay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff.

D. The actual business of Defendant B’s “D” is not Defendant B but Defendant C.

In addition, the plaintiff was well aware that the defendant B is only the nominal lender.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

B. (i) Whether Defendant B is liable for business owner or not is registered as the business owner of “D”, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant is the business owner of “D,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in addition to the entries in subparagraphs 1 and 5 of “D,” the witness C’s testimony, and the witness E’s testimony, the business owner of “D” is not Defendant B, but Defendant C, and the Defendant C borrowed the name of Defendant B and completed the business registration as seen earlier.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff.