1. Defendant B’s KRW 23,766,50 as well as 6% per annum from May 1, 2014 to November 20, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B’s Internet shopping mall operation 1) from December 1, 201, Defendant B reported business registration and mail order business operator’s trade name from around December 1, 201, and conducted electronic commerce transaction business (type E, 504) in Gyeyang-gu E, Gyeyang-gu, 504. Defendant B sold clothing, fashion, miscellaneous, and beauty in F’s Internet shopping mall.

B. The Plaintiff and Defendant B continued trade 1) from the end of 2011 to the end of the transaction, the Plaintiff continued to supply female clothing to Defendant B, and had the transaction ceased on April 30, 2014 by way of the Plaintiff’s repayment of the price of goods from time to time by Defendant B. (2) At the time of discontinuance of the transaction, the amount of goods unpaid by Defendant B was KRW 23,766,50.

C. Defendant C’s receipt and operation of the Internet shopping mall on April 21, 2014, after completing the report of the mail order business operator G on his trade name, and around that time, Defendant C purchased the Internet shopping mall of the above F from Defendant B and sold clothing, fashion, miscellaneous, and beauty.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff and defendant B did not dispute between the plaintiff and defendant C, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3, 4-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the recognition of the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,766,500 for the goods and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from May 1, 2014 to November 20, 2014, which is the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

(Plaintiffs are claiming damages for delay from April 16, 2014, but no ground exists). 3. Claim against Defendant C

A. The gist of the assertion is that Defendant C continued to use the trade name (Internet domain name and its name) with the transfer of business from Defendant B, and as such, Defendant B is in accordance with Article 42 of the Commercial Act.