1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the active fish sales business with the trade name “D” in the Busan District captain-gun.

B. From around 1998, Defendant B opened and operated a restaurant with the trade name “F” in Ulsan-gun E, Ulsan-gun, and closed the restaurant until February 12, 2009. Since May 11, 2012, Defendant B opened and operated a restaurant with the trade name “G” in the vicinity of the aforementioned “F.”

As the spouse of Defendant C, Defendant C is working in the above restaurant together with Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff supplied active terms to “F” operated by the Defendants from around March 2004 to March 17, 2008, and the amount of active terms paid at the time was KRW 29,302,00.

Since then, the Defendants met part of the unpaid active fish prices, and thereafter, requested the Plaintiff to supply active fish again. Accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied active fish to the “G” operated by the Defendants from May 2012 to January 16, 2014.

As above, from around January 2004 to January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied active terms to the Defendants. Since the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 25,178,00 out of the active terms price, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 25,178,00 and the delay damages.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff supplied active terms to the Defendants for a long time, and even if the Plaintiff discontinued active fish supply for about four years, at the request of the Defendants again, the Plaintiff supplied active terms as alleged by the Plaintiff, other than the head of the sales ledger and the sales place prepared by the Plaintiff, and there is no specific evidence to acknowledge the existence of claims for active fish costs of several million won. In light of the circumstances, the written evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 7 are alone.