1. Defendant (Appointed Party) B and Appointed D shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 7,700,000 on the Plaintiff and as from March 10, 2019.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in wholesale and retail business, such as freezing fishery products, and Defendant B operates “E” at Jeju, along with the Dispactor D.

(Business Registration is in the name of D). Defendant C operates “F” at Jeju.

B. At the request of Defendant B and Selection (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B, etc.”), the Plaintiff continued to supply various fishery products, including high light, at the request of Defendant B and Selection D (hereinafter referred to as “second name”). On March 9, 2019, the amount receivable at KRW 7,700,000 was settled by last transaction settlement.

(hereinafter referred to as "transaction"). (c)

Meanwhile, Defendant B, etc. reselled the fishery products supplied by the Plaintiff to Defendant C, and upon the request of Defendant B, etc., the Plaintiff intended to supply the fishery products directly to Defendant C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied the fishery products directly to Defendant C by issuing an electronic tax invoice to the Plaintiff. On July 3, 2017, after settling transactions with Defendant C, the total amount of the outstanding amount was KRW 25.4 million.

('Transaction'). Defendant B, etc. recognized the responsibility of Defendant C's outstanding amount due to them and agreed to provide the Plaintiff with joint and several liability for the outstanding amount due to them.

Therefore, Defendant C shall claim the outstanding amount of KRW 25.4 million from the transaction, and Defendant B, etc. shall seek a total of KRW 25.7 million of the outstanding amount of KRW 7.7 million from the transaction and KRW 25.4 million of the joint and several guarantee amount of KRW 3.1 million.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserts that he directly traded with Defendant C, and the fact that the Plaintiff issued the electronic tax invoice directly with Defendant C does not conflict between the parties. However, in full view of the following facts acknowledged by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the issuance relationship of the tax invoice is alone with Defendant C as a party to the transaction.