1. Defendant C’s KRW 131,824,563 as well as 6% per annum from June 1, 2018 to June 20, 2019.

From May 2014 to June 2017, the Plaintiff supplied 131,824,563 won to the “E” of the personal enterprise located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and was not paid with the price of KRW 131,824,563, and the fact that the “E” was registered as the Defendant B, the Defendant C’s name, does not conflict between the parties.

Defendant C does not dispute the Plaintiff’s receipt of the original parts, etc. as above while operating the “E”. As such, Defendant C is obligated to pay the said unpaid goods price and damages for delay.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B was supplied with goods by the Plaintiff while operating the “E” as Defendant C’s partnership business.

However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the business owner registered the business in the name of the defendant B and the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the defendant B (no evidence exists to acknowledge the authenticity of the defendant B’s seal, and no evidence to prove that the defendant B granted the right of representation for the preparation of each letter). In full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the statement in the statement in B and B, it can only be recognized that the defendant C entered into a goods supply contract with the plaintiff after completing business registration under the name of the defendant B and entering into a goods supply contract

The plaintiff asserts that he is responsible for the name-holder of the defendant B.

However, in light of the above evidence, the plaintiff seems to have known or sufficiently known that the defendant C was engaged in a transaction under the name of the defendant B, and thus, the above assertion is not accepted.

According to the statements in Gap 3 and Eul 4, it is recognized that defendant C had affixed the name tag or seal of defendant B, the representative of "E" on the certificate of credit balance, but in light of each of the contents, the actual operator of "E" can be known that he/she is the defendant C, and only the fact that the defendant C marks the name tag, etc. of defendant B, the business owner of the defendant C, the business owner of the business owner, the plaintiff misleads the defendant B as the party to the transaction.