1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B registered his business in the name of Defendant A, the wife (trade name: C) and continued the operation of the interior fishery. Around March 14, 2012, Defendant B registered the same trade name in the same place under his/her name and continued the said business.

B. The Plaintiff, who was registered as a business operator under the name of Defendant A from June 2010 to May 2013, when the name of business operator was changed to Defendant B, provided goods related to floor construction and construction services to C, but was not paid KRW 7,779,850 out of the price until the instant lawsuit was filed (hereinafter “the outstanding amount”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts in determining the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

(3) The court below's judgment on the defendants' defense is justified. (3) The defendants' assertion that the above transactions were conducted solely by the defendant Eul, and they are not the parties concerned. However, according to the above basic facts, Gap's statement No. 1 and the purport of the whole arguments, the defendant Eul permitted the defendant Eul, the husband, to operate his business under his own name. The plaintiff knew the above defendant as joint business owner with the registration of business under the name of the defendant A, and it is confirmed that the plaintiff started the transaction with the above defendant as the plaintiff's business owner.

A. The Defendants asserted that 90,000 won, the value-added tax amount equivalent to the value-added tax, should be deducted from the outstanding amount, as they did not issue a tax invoice for the goods equivalent to KRW 9 million supplied to C because they were not refundable.

However, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants did not issue a tax invoice at the request of the Defendants at the time of supply of the pertinent product, the Defendants did not go against.