1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 122,974,310 as well as to the period from May 1, 2018 to July 7, 2018.

1. Claim against Defendant B

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession based on the basis of recognition (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The gist of the assertion is that Defendant C is the representative of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and the oligopolistic shareholder who uses the said company’s account for personal purposes, and thus, Defendant C is an abuse of legal personality to the extent that it is deemed that the said company is a private company of Defendant C.

Therefore, Defendant C is also liable for the obligations under the contract for the supply of the instant goods by the Defendant Company.

B. In a case where the judgment company has the external form of a juristic person but merely takes the form of a juristic person, and in substance, it is merely an individual enterprise of a person behind the corporate body, or it is used without permission for the purpose of avoiding the application of the laws against the person behind the corporate body, the denial of the responsibility of the person behind the corporate body by asserting that even if the act of the company is an act of the company, it shall belong only to the company on the ground that the person behind the corporate body is a separate character, and thus, it shall not be permitted against the justice and equity as an abuse of the corporate body in violation of the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, the company as well as the person behind the corporate body shall be held liable for the corporate act

If the company appears to be a private company in the hinterland of the corporate personality, in principle, the company's legal act or fact-finding act at the time when the legal act or fact-finding act in question is conducted, whether it did not follow the decision-making procedure provided for in the law or the articles of incorporation, such as whether it is mixed with the property and business between the company and its hinterland, whether it did not hold a general meeting of shareholders or a board of directors.