1. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 25,487,592 won and Defendant A from December 31, 2014 to July 15, 2015, and Defendant B.

Basic Facts

C and Defendant A operated a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “E” on the D2nd floor in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “E”) around June 2010.

At that time, C participated in the above restaurant business in the name of Defendant B, who is the wife, and Defendant B took charge of the accounting affairs of the restaurant of this case (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B, etc.”), and the business registration certificate (business number: F) issued around that time, are recorded as joint business operators by the Defendants.

From June 30, 2010 to December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied food materials, such as Korean-style cream, to the instant restaurant, and was not paid KRW 25,487,592 out of the price of the food materials.

In around 2014, Defendant A prepared a performance assurance (A) stating that “The Plaintiff will pay the unpaid food materials in installments for five months from January 31, 2015 to May 31, 2015,” to the effect that “the Plaintiff will confirm that the unpaid food materials cost is KRW 25,487,592,” and that the said money will be repaid in installments for five months from May 31, 2015.”

[Ground of recognition] Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and Defendant A, and Article 150(1) through (5) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, and Article 150(1) through (3) of the same Act, and the purport of the fact-finding and the entire pleadings

According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim against the defendant A, the defendant A has the obligation to pay the plaintiff the above food material cost of KRW 25,487,592 and the delay damages.

According to the above facts of recognition as to Defendant B, in light of the above business registration certificate, it is reasonable to view Defendant B, etc. as operating the instant restaurant as Defendant A and Dong business.

However, in full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in Eul 2 and 3, Defendant A, C, and Defendant B were punished for disputes regarding the operation of the instant restaurant, and Defendant A, who had to talk about the operation of the instant restaurant on April 8, 2013, suffered injury by assaulting Eul and Defendant B while talking about the instant restaurant operation on April 8, 2013.

‘Criminal facts' are criminal facts.