1. Defendant B and C jointly with the Plaintiff KRW 47,491,00 and its amount from May 29, 2019 to July 11, 2019.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

(a)as set out in the corresponding part of the list of the reasons for the claim to indicate the claim;

B. Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment of deeming confessions to be made (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company, including the part

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. As indicated in the list of the grounds for the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant Company did not pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff.

However, Defendant C had been well aware of the existence of the aforementioned unpaid obligation while working as the manager of the restaurant of Defendant C Company.

Of these, the defendant C accepted the two restaurants (the first floor B, the second floor D, the third floor E, and the fourth floor F) operated by the defendant C.

Defendant C’s above act constitutes a tort in collusion with the Defendant Company’s participation in evasion of compulsory execution by the Defendant Company, or a tort infringing the Plaintiff’s claim against a third party.

Therefore, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 47,491,00 for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff with compensation for damages caused by the tort.

B. As asserted by the Plaintiff, Defendant C participated in the act of evading compulsory execution by conspiracy with the Defendant Company through the acquisition.

With respect to the fact that a tort has been committed against the Plaintiff’s claims, a third party, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s assertion itself was sufficiently embodied, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts of the assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

(Evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is based on the relevant tax invoices, specifications of transactions, details of transactions, etc.). Rather, according to the entry of the evidence No. 6, the following facts can be revealed.

G against Defendant C and the representative of the Defendant Company H.