1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: 57,583,539 won and its related amount are 6% per annum from May 1, 2019 to January 9, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person whose purpose is timber materials and processing business, etc., and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a juristic person whose purpose is soil construction business, etc., and Defendant C is an employee of the Defendant Company.

B. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with lumber and other wood by April 30, 2019, but did not receive KRW 57,583,539 out of the amount of goods.

[Ground for Recognition] Defendant C: The fact that there is no dispute between Defendant C and Defendant C, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including serial numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 57,583,539, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 1, 2019 to January 9, 2020, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company for the payment of unpaid goods, since the Plaintiff used the position that Defendant C is the “representative” of the Defendant Company and operated its business.

According to each of the evidence No. 4, No. 4, and No. 3, Defendant C may be recognized as having worked for Defendant C to hold the office of “CEO” or “CEO” of the Defendant Company. However, it is difficult for Defendant C to view that Defendant C is jointly and severally liable for the payment of goods of Defendant C solely on the ground that it is a person who has a separate legal personality from the Defendant Company.

(A) The plaintiff's assertion that it should be abused or denied the corporate personality of the defendant company is without merit. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff company is the defendant company.