1. The Plaintiff, the Defendant Company B, and the Defendant Company B, from March 10, 2016, with respect to KRW 5,104,50, and the Defendant D, with respect to KRW 5,358,985.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B and D

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2, and Article 150 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. As to the claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff concluded a product supply contract with Defendant C, which operated a restaurant with the trade name “E” and supplied Defendant C with the goods equivalent to KRW 698,060,060, such as the above goods, but did not receive the above goods. As such, Defendant C was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above 698,060 won and the delay damages. Accordingly, Defendant C concluded a franchise agreement with the head office and received the goods necessary for the operation of the restaurant from the head office, and concluded a franchise agreement with the head office, and did not directly receive the goods or goods supply contract with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for goods supply with Defendant C only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it is not sufficient to recognize that he supplied goods to the defendant or defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is groundless, and it is dismissed.