The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in textile machinery repair business, etc. with the trade name of “D”, and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a legal entity engaged in textile products manufacturing business, etc., and Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. Around December 2015, the Plaintiff repaired the textile machinery of the Defendant Company and received KRW 30 million from the Defendant Company around that time.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Since the Plaintiff’s repair price for the textile machinery of the Defendant Company is KRW 98,90,000,000, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 68,90,000,000, which was already paid by the Defendant Company.

Since Defendant C is an individual company of Defendant C, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the above repair cost to the Plaintiff.

B. Since the repair cost agreed with the Plaintiff was in KRW 30 million and was paid in full, the repair cost to be paid no longer remains. The repair cost to be paid for household affairs remains.

Even if the three-year short-term extinctive prescription prescribed by the Civil Act has already been completed, and the defendant company is not an individual company of the defendant C, and the defendant C is not jointly liable for the debt of the defendant company.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s statement of transaction evidence No. 4 as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim is written by the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to believe the content thereof. The fact confirmation of the preparation of evidence No. 5 and the testimony of witness E is difficult to believe in light of the relationship between E and the Defendants, and there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company that the Defendant Company should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 98,90,000 as repair cost.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants, which is premised on the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s repair cost claim of KRW 98.9 million against the Defendant Company, will proceed further.