1. Defendant B’s KRW 27,552,530 as well as 5% per annum from November 7, 2014 to January 9, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff introduced Defendant B from D, working in mobilization fund &B, a business partner, to supply milk to “F” located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and supplied milk equivalent to KRW 115,342,191 from September 15, 2014 to November 5, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as "the transaction of this case". (b)

Defendant B paid KRW 87,789,661 of the product price by depositing from Defendant C’s account to the Plaintiff’s account, and on November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff received contact from Defendant B that the tax invoice related to the instant transaction was issued as “G (business registration number H, Seoul Yangcheon-gu I underground 10, wholesale retail beverage milk) registered as Defendant C’s business operator.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion: Defendant C, who is the party to the instant transaction, is obligated to pay the unpaid amount to the Plaintiff (main claim), and even if Defendant B is the party to the instant transaction, Defendant C is liable to the employer for the unpaid tort of Defendant B. Therefore, the Defendants shall jointly and severally compensate the Plaintiff for the damages equivalent to the unpaid amount.

(Preliminary Claim). (b)

The Defendants’ assertion: Defendant B is the party to the instant transaction, and Defendant C is not obligated to pay the price of the goods arising from the instant transaction.

3. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff introduced Defendant B from Defendant D and supplied milk to Defendant B who is permanently stationed in Defendant B without confirmation as to its business registration, and exchanged transaction matters with Defendant B, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and Defendant B are identical and traded with each other as a transaction partner. Nor can it be viewed otherwise solely on the basis of the written evidence No. 4.

On a different premise, the plaintiff's primary claim cannot be accepted.

(b)with respect to the ancillary claim.