1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: KRW 61,00,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from April 1, 2015 to June 17, 2015.

The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant B, as an individual entrepreneur who engages in the manufacturing and wholesale business in the trade name of “D”, supplied goods to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) from January 2013 to January 31, 2015, and was not paid the goods amounting to KRW 67,186,980. Since then, the Defendant Company paid KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff on February 6, 2015, and KRW 4,168,980 on March 12, 2015, or was not in dispute between the parties, or the entire purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 3 (including the serial number).

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 61 million (i.e., KRW 67,186,980 - KRW 2 million - KRW 4,168,980) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 20% per annum under the Civil Act from April 1, 2015 to June 17, 2015, which is clearly indicated that the delivery date of a copy of a complaint to the Defendant Company is an obvious date of delivery of a copy of a complaint to the Defendant Company, as sought by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant C, the representative director of the Defendant Company, agreed on July 2014 to pay the Plaintiff the price of the goods of the Defendant Company, and thus, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company.

In light of the above evidence, the defendant C was the representative director of the defendant corporation, and the defendant corporation was dissolved on May 18, 2015, but it is found that the defendant corporation was appointed as a liquidator, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant C agreed to jointly pay the price of the goods of the defendant corporation only with the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 4 through 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion against the defendant C is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company is justified, and the claim against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.