1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 4, 2008, the Defendant and the Defendant’s spouse C completed business registration regarding the restaurant with the trade name “E” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s location (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. The Plaintiff supplied fishery products to the restaurant of this case, and the price for goods not paid as of May 10, 2018 is KRW 42,923,600.

C. C died on May 9, 2018, and the Defendant and the Defendant’s son F reported the renunciation of inheritance, and the report was accepted on August 23, 2018.

Seoul Family Court (the Seoul Family Court 2018Radan5780). [The grounds for recognition: the absence of any dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply)

(i) the entry in Category B(1) and the purport of the entire pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. Considering the business registration relationship of the restaurant in this case, and the settlement of the price of goods, etc., the Defendant jointly operated the restaurant in this case with C, and thus, is jointly liable for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the price of the goods payable to the plaintiff and the damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion that he was paid living expenses from C as a family principal book, but did not receive any distribution of the profits of the restaurant of this case, but did not work in the restaurant of this case, and did not have engaged in the restaurant of this case in partnership with C.

Therefore, there is no obligation to repay the price of goods.

3. Determination

A. If a partnership’s obligation is to be borne by an act of commercial activity for all union members, then it is jointly and severally liable to union members by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da30705, Nov. 22, 1991). The key issue of the instant case is whether partnership relationship between the Defendant and C, namely, partnership relationship between the Defendant and C.

B. In full view of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence No. 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is a co-operator of the restaurant of this case.