1. Defendant D Co., Ltd. and E jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 72,329,922 and the Plaintiff on January 31, 2020.

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff is an agricultural company that runs the land breeding processing business, and the Defendant Company D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is an agricultural company that received goods, such as fright, from the Plaintiff, and Defendant E is the representative director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant F is the employee of the Defendant Company.

The Plaintiff supplied money to Defendant Company by December 10, 2019, but did not receive KRW 72,329,922 out of the price of goods.

Accordingly, on December 17, 2019, the Defendant Company issued a “written confirmation of the balance of the sales amount” to confirm that the Plaintiff has the obligation to pay the goods equivalent to the above amount, and Defendant E guaranteed the said obligation by the representative director of the Defendant Company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant Company and E: It is deemed that confession was made under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant F: According to the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant company, and the above facts found as to the claim against Eul, the defendant company and Eul are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 72,329,922, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 31, 2020 to the date of complete payment, as the plaintiff seeks.

The plaintiff in the claim against the defendant F asserted that the defendant F is an employee of the defendant company, and the plaintiff was engaged in goods transaction directly with the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant F is jointly and severally with the defendant company and E, and the defendant F is obligated to pay 72,329,922 won for the unpaid goods and damages for delay.

In light of the above facts, since the other party to the goods transaction contract of this case with the plaintiff is the defendant company, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant F, who is an employee of the defendant company, is liable to pay the plaintiff the unpaid goods price, just because he directly traded goods with the plaintiff, and it is otherwise recognized.