1. All the claims of the primary plaintiff and the conjunctive plaintiff are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be the primary plaintiff and the conjunctive plaintiff.

1. The primary plaintiff and the conjunctive plaintiff's assertion

A. Madsan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Madsan Co., Ltd.”) supplied the Defendant operating a hospital with medicines from May 18, 2008 to October 15, 2008, the price for the goods that had not been paid was KRW 66,211,215.

B. From November 20, 2009 to June 30, 2010, the conjunctive Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement against the Defendant by paying the price for the said goods on behalf of a Preferred Preferred Preferred to as “Preferred to as “Preferred to as “Preferred to as “Preferred to as Preferred to as “Preferred to as”, and the Preferred to as “Preferred to as”

C. Around November 22, 2011, the conjunctive Plaintiff transferred both the above claim for reimbursement and the above claim for the price of goods to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant thereof.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal plaintiff who received the above claim for reimbursement and the above claim for the amount of 66,211,215 won and 6% interest per annum from October 16, 2008 to the date of full payment. If the transfer of the above claim against the principal plaintiff is not recognized, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal plaintiff the above 66,211,215 won and the amount of 6% interest per annum from October 16, 2008 to the date of full payment.

2. The primary plaintiff and the conjunctive evidence presented by the plaintiff alone are not sufficient to recognize that a sub-stockper supplied the defendant with drugs of KRW 66,211,215 from May 18, 2008 to October 15, 2008, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Thus, the primary plaintiff and the conjunctive plaintiff's assertion that is based on the existence of the above claim against the defendant of a sub-stockper is without merit.

Even if it is assumed that the above claim against the defendant of the family uniform farm exists, it is not sufficient to recognize that the conjunctive plaintiff subrogated the above claim for the price of the goods only by the evidences submitted by the main plaintiff and the plaintiff, and evidence to recognize it otherwise.