1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

Defendant B is Co-Defendant D Co-Defendant in the first instance trial.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in wholesale and retail business of livestock products with the trade name called E.

D is a company established on May 2, 201, the head office of which is located in the Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do F (transfer to Sejong-si on August 27, 2012) and for the purpose of meat processing and storage and wholesale business, etc.

Defendant B is the representative director of Defendant B, and Defendant C is the father of Defendant B and is the auditor of Defendant B.

B. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff sold imported meat equivalent to KRW 2,869,590 at the H’s workplace in Bupyeong-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff received 5,00,000 won for goods from D and heard that the Plaintiff would immediately deposit the remainder of the goods, and supplied 18,958,520 won at the same place of business.

C. On March 27, 2014, D prepared and executed a notarial deed of a monetary loan for transfer security with the purport that “D borrowed KRW 16,828,110 from the Plaintiff, and repaid it by April 30, 2014, but provides D-owned land-saving apparatus, alley, and a cooling machine, etc. as collateral for transfer for the purpose of securing its performance.”

At the time, Defendant C was involved in the preparation of the notarial deed as the agent of Defendant C. D.

The Plaintiff received payment of KRW 300,000,000 from D on April 18, 2014, and KRW 1,000,000 on May 2, 2014, and KRW 1,50,000 on May 26, 2014, and KRW 50,000 on August 18, 2014.

E. Around May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff visited D’s subordinate place of business, but did not operate the business in a closed state.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion D was supplied with the goods from the Plaintiff, it was supplied with the goods as if it was possible to pay the price to the Plaintiff even though it did not have the ability to pay the price.

Defendant B, as the representative director of D, is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 13,528,110 of the balance of the goods price.

B. Determination by Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s status on September 21, 2015.