1. Defendant C and D jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 25,750,400, and Defendant C with respect thereto from July 8, 2014, and Defendant D.

1. Claim against Defendant C and D

A. Indication of Claim: The Plaintiff supplied food materials from July 2012 to May 2013 to F Holdings located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “this case’s database”) that is the business place of the said Defendants, and did not receive KRW 25,750,400 out of the price of the goods.

(b) Defendant C: Judgment on deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) and Defendant D: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant B is the actual business owner who took over the business of the instant New Holdings and is liable to pay KRW 25,750,400 prior to and after the transfer of the business, to the Plaintiff. Defendant B lent the name of the instant New Holdings to G.

Even if a name truster is liable for the price of the plaintiff's goods pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. According to the statement in subparagraphs 4-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 4-1 and 2, the instant securities business entity was Defendant D and C around November 10, 201, but the fact that Defendant B was added to the joint business entity on December 28, 2012 is recognized.

Furthermore, as to whether Defendant B is a substantial business operator of the instant Party, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely by the descriptions of health class, Party A’s evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, since the Plaintiff was the person who was unaware of the fact that Defendant B was added to joint business until the food materials were finally supplied to the instant database, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff traded Defendant B by mistake as the business owner.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B bears the obligation to pay the goods to the Plaintiff as the operator or the nominal lender of the instant database.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed as it is without merit, and the claim against the defendant C and D is accepted as reasonable.