1. The defendant jointly with the non-party corporation B, and jointly with the plaintiff KRW 92,00,000, and the defendant's amount from April 26, 2016.

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that operates the Kim Processing Factory, and the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “B”) is a company that produces and sells straw pumps used as a drying machine in the Kim Processing Factory.

B. On August 17, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased eight hump pumps (a model name HD-A20S1, hereinafter “instant Hump pumps”) from B as of October 10, 201 by setting the payment period of KRW 165 million and delivery period of KRW 165 million.

C. According to the above sales contract, the Plaintiff was handed over eight of the instant hump pumps and installed in the Kim Processing Factory. From August 18, 2011 to January 4, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 132 million to the Defendant out of the purchase price of the instant hump eight of the instant hump eight.

On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that B terminated the contract on the ground that it failed to meet the agreed performance of the contract, which was installed by B against B, and that it failed to achieve the purpose of the contract, and filed a lawsuit claiming the return of KRW 92 million after deducting the value of KRW 40 million at the time of rescission of the contract from the price.

(No. 2015 Gohap3383, hereinafter referred to as the "Prior Action"). E.

In the previous case, on December 7, 2016, the Plaintiff’s claim was fully accepted, and “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 92 million won and interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum from April 26, 2016 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

F. B is a company established on February 3, 2006 and for which C is an internal director, and the defendant is a company established on May 29, 2013 and has D as an internal director.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that D, who actually controlled B, has abused the company system by establishing the defendant for the purpose of evading his/her obligation. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is jointly with B and is liable to perform his/her obligation according to the previous final judgment.

The defendant.