1. Defendant B’s KRW 10 million and KRW 50 million among the Plaintiff’s KRW 50,000 annually from October 9, 2010 to January 21, 2016.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. In full view of the reasoning of each argument in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim (the defendant Eul submitted with Gap evidence No. 9, but there is no evidence supporting the claim, the above defense is not accepted) as to the conclusion of the contract of this case to the defendant Eul. The plaintiff asserted that the contract of this case was concluded between the defendant Eul and the defendant Eul representing the defendant Eul, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant Eul paid 10 million won in total and 50 million won in total to the plaintiff, and 50 million won in total from Oct. 9, 2010 to Jan. 21, 2016, the delivery date of the complaint of this case to 50 million won in total, and 15% in total from the date of delivery of the complaint of this case to Jan. 21, 2016 to 25% in total as to damages for delay calculated by the plaintiff's annual interest rate of 150 million won in accordance with the Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Lawsuit.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B did not grant the power of representation to Defendant C as to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and there is no room for establishment of the apparent representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act unless the said power of representation was granted to Defendant C.

Defendant B only submitted a written response stating the aforementioned purport, but did not appear on the date of the instant pleading that was proceeded two times.

However, it is recognized as above that Defendant B granted the right of representation for the conclusion of the instant sales contract to Defendant C.