1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,80,000 as well as to the day of full payment from October 8, 2020 to the day of full payment.

1. Claim against Defendant B corporation

A. On July 14, 2018, the Plaintiff, as indicated in the separate sheet, leased real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) as KRW 30,000,00, monthly rent of KRW 3300,000 (including value added tax). The Plaintiff, as indicated in the separate sheet, leased real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) from December 15, 2018, deducted the remainder of KRW 51,80,000 from the unpaid rent of KRW 2,30,000 in December 15, 2018, and the remainder of KRW 30,000 from the rent of KRW 49,50,000 in arrears of KRW 15 months, and KRW 300,00 in the civil lawsuit for the remainder of KRW 30,00,00 from the rent of KRW 30,00 in 15 months (Article 28(2)5) of the Confession Act).

2. The plaintiff claiming against the defendant C is jointly and severally paid by the defendant C with the defendant company as the overdue loan until February 2020.

As such, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 17,300,000 with the Defendant Company.

One of the arguments, Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 8 is that the defendant C is jointly and severally with the defendant company to pay the overdue debts of the defendant company.

It is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant C promised to promise ( Defendant C signed and sealed each letter (Evidence No. 3) as the representative of the Defendant Company, and there is no content that Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company for the overdue charge of the Defendant Company in the above letter or the letter that Defendant C sent to the Plaintiff (Evidence No. 8) by the Plaintiff). Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

Then, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that Defendant C is also liable for the overdue rent of the Defendant Company, as the actual operator of Defendant C abused the corporate personality of the Defendant Company. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that the Defendant Company was punished to the extent that it is unreasonable for Defendant C to be an individual company.

It is difficult to see it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.