1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. From May 15, 2012, Defendant, Co-Defendant C, and D jointly operate a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “F cafeteria” in Busan Northern-gu, Busan as the Dong business from May 15, 201, and registered the instant restaurant in the name of D’s mother G.

B. As of August 22, 2013, while engaging in wholesale and retail business of livestock products with the trade name of “H, the Plaintiff supplied the instant restaurant with goods, such as 3,388,950 won in total, such goods as swine meat, etc., and was not paid.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1 or Gap 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the absence of special circumstances, a partnership creditor is only entitled to claim reimbursement according to the ratio of shares to each partner or equally. However, in the event the partnership debt is particularly borne by an act of commercial activity for all partners, it is reasonable to determine jointly and severally liable for partners by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26521, Aug. 20, 2014). B.

According to the above facts, the defendant is a member of the cooperative that jointly operates the restaurant of this case, and the amount of goods unpaid by the plaintiff for the restaurant of this case constitutes an obligation of the cooperative that has been borne by the act of commercial activity for all the members, such as the defendant, the co-defendant C of the first instance trial, and D.

As such, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with the co-defendant C and D of the first instance trial to pay the above amount of goods payable to the plaintiff 3,388,950 won and damages for delay.

On March 2013, the defendant withdrawn from the partnership business relationship of the restaurant operation of this case with the co-defendant C of the first instance court around March 2013, and therefore the above amount of the goods that occurred after withdrawal is paid.