1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the corresponding plaintiff's primary claim is revoked.

1. This part of the court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept the reasoning in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. According to the above facts, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of KRW 173,654,000 from June 19, 2014 to the date of delivery of the complaint in this case from June 20, 2014 to August 1, 2014, which is the date of delivery of the complaint in this case, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant B asserts to the effect that “Although the Plaintiff as the operator of the instant restaurant confirmed the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff, Defendant B trades by deceiving the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff, such as falsely stating that it is identical to the unit price of the fireworks supplied to another restaurant, and taking a width, and thus, it is null and void or cancelled, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the outstanding amount.”

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff deceivings the defendant B in relation to the above fireworks transaction, and the above assertion by the defendant B, which is premised on this, is without merit.

3. Claim against Defendant C

A. The primary claim 1 asserts that “Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay the total outstanding amount and its delay damages to the Plaintiff on the grounds of: (1); (2) and (3).”

① Defendant C operated the instant restaurant jointly with Defendant B, a member of the same club.

② Defendant C has changed the trade name of a restaurant from “G” to “E” and maintained the human organization of the restaurant business facilities and employees, etc. and operated the instant restaurant, and thus, Defendant C is liable to pay the total amount of the outstanding amount as a transferee of the business belonging to his trade name.

③ Defendant C has registered the instant restaurant in its name and had the Plaintiff do so.