1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 72,880,000 and the interest rate thereon from August 26, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company that engages in the processing of the clothes, food and garment of clothing, and the Defendants are in de facto marital relationship, and the Defendant A is a person who has registered his business with C for the purpose of retailing the clothes.

B. On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for processing with Defendant B on a male basis, etc., and was entrusted by Defendant B with the production of 20,108 Mitts for male use and 35,800 Mitts, and was produced from May 4, 2015, and supplied all products worth KRW 90,882,440 to the Defendants.

C. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant paid 18,000,000 won.

The Defendants promised to pay KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff on June 22, 2015, up to June 25, 2015, KRW 30,000,000 until July 1, 2015, up to July 1, 2015, the Defendants promised to pay KRW 2,880,000 to the Plaintiff by July 15, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 72,880,000 for the processed amount payable to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 26, 2015 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the Plaintiff, following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant A asserts that the judgment on the defendant A's assertion only lent the business name to the defendant B in a de facto marital relationship and did not actually engage in the business, and thus, the defendant A is not liable.

In this regard, there is no evidence to acknowledge Defendant A’s assertion, and Defendant A lent the name of business like Defendant A’s assertion.

Even if there are no special circumstances, Defendant A’s assertion is not acceptable, since it is deemed that it is responsible as the nominal name holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and ordered to accept it.