1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 25 million and the period from May 28, 2015 to March 17, 2016.

1. Presumed facts

A. On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales (import agency contract) agreement on the Corben Motor Vehicle with KRW 25 million, and the seller column of the contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) includes the name of the Defendant-Import Cooperative (hereinafter “Defendant Cooperative”) and the employee seal of the Defendant Cooperative. The payment account is also written in the account of the Defendant Cooperative, and the name of the Defendant B is written in the column for counseling business and sales.

B. On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3 million in the account of the Defendant Union as stated in the instant contract, and KRW 22 million in the remainder on May 28, 2015, respectively.

C. On July 2015, the Plaintiff was not able to receive an automobile even after the end of the period specified as the implementation date. On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant Association a certificate of content, including an expression of intent to cancel the instant contract, and reached the Defendant Association around that time.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides that "a person who has permitted another person to run a business by using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to the third person who has transacted his/her trade name as the proprietor of the business, by misunderstanding that the person who has lent his/her name is the principal of the business and to protect the interests of the other party who has transacted the transaction, shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to the lender of the name in the course of his/her business transaction."

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da46555 Decided October 23, 2008). In light of the above legal principle, according to the health care unit, Eul’s statement, and the whole purport of pleadings, Defendant B and the Defendant Cooperative received goods from the Defendant Cooperative, and sold them to consumers or the Defendant Cooperative.