1. Defendant A and C jointly and severally provide for KRW 33,138,500 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C with respect thereto from March 29, 2014.

1. Determination as to claims against Defendant A and C

A. From May 29, 2013 to the same year, the Plaintiff

7. By the 15th day, Defendant A and C supplied alcoholic beverages to GNa clubs jointly operated by the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-si (E, one parcel F, and ten floors). Since the unpaid amount out of the liquor supply amount is KRW 33,138,500, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the outstanding amount and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

B. Judgment that Defendant A and C were notified of the date of each service by public notice and did not appear on the date of pleading (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. From May 29, 2013 to the same year, the Plaintiff determined as to the claim against Defendant B.

7. up to 15. The fact that Defendant B supplied alcoholic beverages to GB clubs registered as joint business owners, and the unpaid amount out of the goods supplied during the above period is 3,138,500 grounds for the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant B did not dispute each other, or that the entire pleadings are acknowledged in light of the purport of the argument in the submission order of each tax information pertaining to Gap's 1, 2, and 4, and the Supreme Court's order for submission of the tax information as to the astronomical tax report. Thus, there are no special circumstances, and the Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of goods and the damages

In regard to this, Defendant B asserts that the above Defendant is exempted from its liability because the Plaintiff knew of, or was unaware of, the fact that the business registration was made by lending the name to Nonparty H due to gross negligence. Therefore, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact that the nominal name was registered, he is not liable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da18309, Nov. 12, 1991; 200Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001).