1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 35,337,000 won and 6% per annum from October 2, 2015 to June 19, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants jointly operated a Chinese restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) under the name of “F” (the trade name of which is changed to “G” around January 2013), from around February 6, 2006, in the name of “F” (hereinafter “F”).

Although the business registration of the instant restaurant was made under the name of Defendant C, Defendant C, as Defendant C and his husband, operated the said restaurant jointly with Defendant C, and conducted delivery employees management, management, management, overall operation and management, food materials orders, receipt and inspection, etc., and used the title “president” of the said restaurant inside and outside of the country.

(A) Defendant B, who is the wife, independently operated the restaurant in this case, asserted that Defendant C was not involved in the business and operation of the restaurant in this case, but the above argument is not accepted in light of the above facts.

The Plaintiff, who runs the wholesale and retail store of food materials with the trade name of “H”, supplied food materials, such as rice, kimchi, and red powder, to the instant restaurant from around 2006 to September 29, 2015 in accordance with the orders of the Defendants’ food materials. The Defendants have been paying some of the above food materials intermittently.

Meanwhile, from July 18, 2013 to September 29, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied food materials equivalent to KRW 42,575,000 in total to the Defendants. The Defendants paid only KRW 2,500,000 on October 24, 2014, KRW 1,000,000 on April 1, 2015, and KRW 3,000,000 on May 19, 2015, and KRW 738,000 on October 1, 2015.

C. The Defendants closed the instant restaurant on March 4, 2016, and did not pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount until the date of the closing of the instant argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Gap evidence 12 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants did not specify individual transactions, and the Plaintiff’s assertion from July 18, 2013 to prevent the Plaintiff from doing so.