1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 54,058,464 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 18, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

The Plaintiff asserted by the parties that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant, who operates the goods retail shop (hereinafter “instant store”) with the trade name, Nam-gu, Incheon, and the clothing retail shop (hereinafter “D”), a type of clothing of KRW 82,58,164, the market price by November 18, 2014, and the Defendant is not paid KRW 54,058,464, and thus, sought payment for the amount of the unpaid goods.

A party who entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of clothes is E, and the Defendant is merely a person who lends the business name of the instant store to E, not a party to the contract. Even if the Defendant is a party to the contract for the supply of clothes, he/she decided to close the instant store with the accumulated number of persons following the operation of the instant store, and agreed to pay the unpaid goods to the Plaintiff.

The amount of the unpaid goods is merely KRW 23,000,000.

Judgment

According to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and witness E's testimony, the defendant's registered business operator of the store of this case. The defendant paid value-added tax imposed on the store of this case. The defendant opened a bank account under his own name and delivered it to the plaintiff, and paid the price for the goods using the above account. Eul sent the plaintiff the debt details to the plaintiff on November 18, 2017 in relation to the application for individual rehabilitation. The name of debt was stated as the defendant's guaranteed debt, and the defendant was found to have supervised the interior work of the store of this case, and the defendant also operated the store of this case as a partnership business of this case by investing KRW 60,00,000 in the written reply, if it appears that the defendant deposited the money for the clothes sales in time, and that the tax return was also asserted in good faith, the plaintiff concluded a contract for the supply of clothing and clothing with the defendant E and the defendant E.