1. The Defendants’ respective 12,602,776 won and each of the above amounts to the Plaintiff, Defendant B from August 11, 2015 to Defendant C.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, following the agreement between Eul and the defendants to operate the Internet telephone sales agent E (hereinafter "the company of this case") by jointly registering the business in the plaintiff's name, and to distribute profits and losses to one-third shares of each of them, and then from February 11, 2008 to the same year.

7. The facts that up to 31.31., D and the Defendants agreed to pay their taxes from the operation of the instant company to the Plaintiff, but the value-added tax to be paid at the time of the closure of business on July 31, 2008 was not determined and thus, it was not paid. Accordingly, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff, registered as the business entity of the instant company, paid the total value-added tax of KRW 37,808,330 on behalf of D and the Defendants (= KRW 33,917,250, KRW 3,891,00).

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are obligated to pay the amount equivalent to 1/3 shares of each of the defendants' shares in the partnership business among the value-added tax arising from the company of this case under an agreement with the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 12,602,776 won (=37,808,330 won x 1/3) and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff from August 11, 2015, the day following the delivery day of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and the defendant C is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 12, 2015 to the day of complete payment each of them.

As to this, Defendant B did not have the obligation to pay the value-added tax to the Plaintiff insofar as he did not receive the allocation of profits from the company's partnership business. However, the distribution of profits from the company's partnership business is an internal issue between the partners and D, and it is not the amount to be settled between the Defendants and the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant B's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.