The Defendants jointly and severally, and severally, to the designated parties A, KRW 6,171,428, KRW 9,257,142, and KRW 6.0 to the designated parties E.

1. Basic facts

A. The networkF, with the trade name of G, engaged in plastic retail business. B is the business owner of H who runs screen printing business. Defendant C, with the trade name of Defendant B’s private village type, was engaged in screen printing business in its own name from January 1, 1999, and closed on September 27, 2007 and was the actual manager of the said H.

B. The net F supplied goods, such as vinyl, to I or H from around 2007 to September 6, 2013, and died on November 1, 2013, and the unpaid amount is KRW 34,910,143.

C. The Plaintiff’s designated parties and the designated parties are the successors of the network F. D.

Plaintiff

On November 6, 2013, the designated party received a written pledge of supply price payment (hereinafter “instant written pledge”) in the name of the Defendants that Defendant C would reduce the unpaid amount to KRW 24,000,000,000, and that Defendant C would pay the unpaid amount to KRW 1,200,000 each month from Defendant C.

E. The Plaintiff’s Designating Party received only KRW 2,400,000 out of the amount of the said written pledge and did not receive the remainder.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A(including paper numbers), Evidence A(including paper numbers), Evidence A(3), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The party who designated the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendants are liable to pay the remainder because they failed to pay the remainder, even if they prepared a written promise to pay the unpaid amount to the business owner or the actual manager in installments.

The Defendants asserted to the effect that Defendant B only lent the name of the business operator to Defendant C, which is a private village type, and did not prepare a written pledge of payment, and that the unpaid amount did not occur after his business registration, and that Defendant B did not have any liability for payment since Defendant B knew that the actual business operator of H was Defendant C and Defendant B was only the nominal business operator.

3. Determination

(a) the name or titles; and