1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 58,212,228 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from June 13, 2012 to the date of full payment.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C, a child of Defendant C, under the name of Defendant C, to the effect that the Plaintiff was provided with gold punishment from Defendant C, and the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied Handphones, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”). Defendant C, after receiving the instant goods, concluded a contract under which the Plaintiff would pay the instant goods within 15 days (the last day of the following month) of the following month (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”).

B. At the time of the contract for the supply of the instant goods, the Plaintiff was supplied with raw materials, such as posters, by Defendant C’s designated E, and the Plaintiff was arranged to directly purchase the raw materials, and agreed to issue a tax invoice to Defendant C with the amount including the processing cost in the raw materials cost.

C. According to the instant goods supply contract, the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to Defendant C by March 2012, but the Defendant C did not pay KRW 58,212,228, out of the instant goods price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The plaintiff as a party to the claim against the defendant B (1) asserts that since the defendant B is not only the child of the defendant C but also the party to the transaction of this case, the defendant B should assume the contractual responsibility as a party to the transaction of this case. However, the fact that the contract was concluded under the name of the defendant B and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant B concluded the contract with the plaintiff as a party to the transaction, and there

(2) The Plaintiff, as the nominal name holder, asserts that Defendant B should bear responsibility as the nominal name holder, as he is in the position of representative of Defendant D Company.

Modern, Defendant B.