1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 65,822,810 and Defendant B from April 2, 2017 to June 11, 2018.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

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

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacturing business of coding parts with the trade name “E” in Namyang-si, Namyang-si; (b) Defendant B is a person engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business with the trade name “G” from the Government-si,” and (c) the Plaintiff supplied new parts, etc. to “G” by April 1, 2017; and (d) the fact that the price was 65,822,810 causes does not conflict between the parties, or that the entire purport of arguments in the items in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Articles 1 and 2 is recognized by taking account

B. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant C is jointly and severally liable with the defendant B to pay the price of the goods to the plaintiff, since the defendant C substantially operated the "G" with the defendant B.

As to this, Defendant C asserted to the purport that the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless, since he was employed by Defendant C and served as a business employee.

C. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant C actually operated “G” by taking into account the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to each of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and evidence Nos. 5-1 through 5, i.e., the name of the Plaintiff’s “representative” in using the name of the Plaintiff’s “G”, namely, the fact that Defendant C was in charge of all duties related to the conclusion of the contract, approval of funds, etc. with the customer; Defendant C paid the goods to the customer including the Plaintiff; Defendant C was at the time of issuing a promissory note of the Plaintiff Company H, the representative of which was the Plaintiff; Defendant C was an employee of the “G; but there is no evidence to deem that Defendant C was receiving benefits from the Defendant

Therefore, Defendant C as a party to the contract, the price for the goods is KRW 65,822,810.