1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,740,231 as well as KRW 6% per annum from May 2, 2015 to September 7, 2015; and (b) from September 8, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 18, 2014, the Defendant was supplied with KRW 26,074,285,000 of the contract amount by organizing a joint supply and demand organization (hereinafter referred to as “joint supply and demand organization of this case”) with Gyeongnam Company Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul”) and a joint supply and demand organization (hereinafter referred to as “joint supply and demand organization”) with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “instant joint supply and demand organization”).

B. At the time of the instant construction contract, the Defendant and the Gyeongnam Company entered into a joint supply and demand agreement for the formation of the instant joint supply and demand agreement, and the main contents are as follows.

Members of a joint supply and demand organization: The representative of the joint supply and demand organization for the defendant shall represent the joint supply and demand organization against the project owner and the third person, and shall have the authority, such as the management of the property of the joint supply and demand organization and the request for payment.

Gyeongnam Enterprise: 90% of construction, machinery, civil engineering, fire 100% of fire fighting: 10% of construction, machinery, civil engineering

C. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for supply of steel bars necessary for the instant construction, and the Plaintiff supplied the steel bars equivalent to KRW 20,740,231 in total at the instant construction site by May 1, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. A joint venture in the method of joint performance basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da49620, Dec. 2, 2000). If a partnership’s obligation is to be borne by an act which is a commercial activity for all members, it is reasonable to determine the joint and several liability of partners by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Da2212, Dec. 14, 1976). In addition, Article 48 of the Commercial Act does not indicate that an agent of a commercial act acts acts acts on behalf of himself/herself, the act is effective against himself/herself.

However, the other party's interest is for himself.