1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the following judgments to the conjunctive grounds for the plaintiff's primary claims, which are newly asserted in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Plaintiff’s assertion first, the Defendants’ operation of the aquaculture and possession of the license for the entire pattern. Thus, the Defendants are not D, but D, and D are joint and several liability.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay the unpaid purchase price to the Plaintiff.

Second, the Defendants and D operate the aquaculture together with D as the children of D. Thus, the Defendants and D are partnership(partnership).

Therefore, the Defendants are liable for the repayment of the portion that D, a insolvent partner, is also liable. Therefore, the Defendants are equally liable for the payment of the unpaid purchase price and the amount equivalent to 1/2 thereof.

Judgment

According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, according to the whole purport of the pleadings, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Eul seeking the purchase price of the instant package of goods against Eul as the party to the instant package of goods sale contract, and that the plaintiff received the instant collection order based on the instant claim arising out of the conciliation established in the instant case, and that the defendants filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for objection (Yanju District Court Decision 2016Da21060) against the plaintiff, and that the defendants operated the package of goods in the relevant complaint, which stated that D had the intention to work in the form of goods in D as the child, but it is recognized that the form of goods and the license for the ebs of goods were completed in the name of the defendants.

According to the above facts of recognition, D is the actual operator of D's aquaculture, but it lends the name of the defendants.