1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 136,120,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from March 1, 2015 to June 12, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was established on December 23, 2008 for the purpose of selling fishery products, agricultural products, livestock products wholesale and retail, and home shopping, and Defendant C fisheries partnership (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a corporation established on November 19, 2012 for the purpose of increasing its members’ income through joint shipment, processing, export, etc. of fishery products.

B. From early 2014 to February 14, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with fishery products equivalent to KRW 206,120,500, and received reimbursement of KRW 70,000 among them.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 136,120,000 for the remainder of the goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from March 1, 2015 to June 12, 2017, which is the delivery date of the written application for modification of claim and cause of claim, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Claim against Defendant C fishery partnership corporation

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D demanded that the Plaintiff deliver fishery products to the factory domicile owned by the Defendant Fisheries Partnership, which was indicated in the above order, with the name of the representative director of the Defendant Fisheries Partnership.

The signboard at the address of the above factory where the plaintiff delivered the goods is indicated C and E, and even through the website mentioned above, D directly operates the above factory as the representative director E and confirms the fact that the processed fishery products have been sold through home shopping.

D used the name of the representative director of the defendant fishery partnership and formed the appearance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not have any reason attributable to the trust of the plaintiff. Since the defendant fishery partnership while being aware that D used such name, the defendant fishery partnership did not neglect it, it is in accordance with Article 395 of the Commercial Code or Article 129 of the Civil Code.