1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant which orders the following payment:

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, a company operating the wholesale business, etc. of fishery products, supplied the fishery products from May 8, 2012 to June 25, 2013, as shown in the attached Form, to the mutual business entity “Cwa Holdings” in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “Swa Holdings”), and the outstanding amount generated during the said period is the total amount of KRW 87,040,000 (hereinafter “instant commodity price”).

B. On December 28, 2012, the name of the business operator of the instant securities transaction certificate was changed from “A” to “Defendant, A, and F.”

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant wa Holdings is a partnership in which the Defendant is a member of the association, and the Defendant, who is a member of the association, is jointly and severally liable to pay the price of the instant goods supplied to the said partnership with the other member of the association (the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendant as a business operator, and the Plaintiff’s claim is asserted as above.

(2) The Defendant, even though not a member, has consented to the use of the Defendant’s name in relation to the operation of the instant crowdfunding, and thus, the nominal holder is obliged to pay the instant goods price in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The actual operation of the instant goods is D. The Defendant was merely to receive D’s equity interest and the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of the instant goods in order to secure D’s loan. The Defendant is not obligated to pay the price of the instant goods because it does not have any participation in the operation of the instant goods or any lack of distribution of profit. (2) The Plaintiff did not mislead the Defendant as the business owner, and there was no fact that the Defendant did not participate in the instant goods operation, thereby giving the Plaintiff trust as the business owner. Therefore, the Defendant does not have any duty to pay the price of the instant goods.