1. Defendant A’s 34,399,900 won for the Plaintiff, and Defendant B’s 31,669,000 won for the above money jointly with Defendant A.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s personal relations is a corporation engaged in livestock products distribution business in Ansan-si D (102 and 103) and the Defendants are one family members, with the trade name of Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant C, with the trade name of Defendant B, and Defendant C, with the trade name of H, operated three business operators with the name of each business operator.

B. The Plaintiff supplied livestock products, such as Korea-dow, to the Defendants on credit, and the details of the amount of the unpaid goods are Defendant B’s 31,669,000 won (based on August 12, 2016), Defendant A’s 2,404,200 won (based on March 15, 2017), and Defendant C’s 326,700 won (based on August 5, 2016).

C. The Plaintiff and Defendant A agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 34,39,900, which is the full amount of the goods unpaid by the Defendants, on the date of the date payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendants asserting that they were jointly and severally liable to pay the total amount of the goods payable to the Plaintiff.

B. However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants constituted a joint business entity and traded goods with the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, according to the agreement with the Plaintiff, Defendant A is obligated to pay 34,39,900 won for all the Defendants’ unpaid goods; Defendant B jointly with Defendant A KRW 31,669,00 for the unpaid goods; Defendant C jointly with Defendant A for the payment of KRW 326,70 for the unpaid goods; and damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is well-grounded, and the claim against the defendant B and C is justified within the scope of the above recognition.