1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 38,03,240 and Defendant C with full payment from December 27, 2018.

1. As to Defendant C

A. On the following grounds, Defendant C’s confession was established pursuant to Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act regarding the facts constituting the Plaintiff’s assertion.

1) The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of tea, etc. . 2) Defendant C is running a wholesale and retail business, such as plant species, bedclothes, etc., with the trade name of “E” as it is with Defendant D, the wife.

3. Upon the request of the Defendants, the Plaintiff supplied goods such as tea from January 2018 to March 2018, and was not paid KRW 38,03,240 out of the price.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant C is obligated to pay 38,03,240 won for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff jointly and severally with Defendant D, who is a partner, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from December 27, 2018 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff.

2. As to Defendant D

A. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant D is the wife of Defendant C and was operating the said company as the representative of Defendant C and the said company as the partnership business registration, and thus, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder of the goods to the Plaintiff.

(P) The Plaintiff is liable under Article 24 of the Commercial Act for the following reasons: (a) Defendant D was registered as a representative for business registration; and (b) Defendant D constitutes a nominal lender who lent his business name to Defendant C; and (c) the Plaintiff made a transaction by misunderstanding that Defendant D was operating the said business with Defendant C; (b) Defendant D is liable under Article 24 of the Commercial Act

(Preliminary Claim). (b)

Defendant D’s assertion is not a partner of Defendant C.

At the request of Defendant C, who is the husband, is only the nominal lender registered as the name of business registration.

The “E” is entirely managed by Defendant C, who is her husband, and Defendant D did not take part in it.

The plaintiff was requested by Defendant C who actually manages E to supply it.