1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 56,632,040 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from November 17, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B registered his business from January 2008 to November 201, 2016 with the trade name “D” in Southern-gu, Busan.

From March 1, 2015, Defendant A, a child of Defendant B, was registered as joint business operators of the above D.

B. Around July 2009, the Plaintiff received a business registration certificate with Defendant B’s business operator, installed a cooling house at D’s workplace, and supplied alcoholic beverages from around that time to October 17, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to D, and when settling an unclaimed claim at the end of the following month, if the bonds were not settled in the following month, it was settled by the method of settling outstanding bonds first in the following month, but was not paid KRW 5,632,040.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 and 3 evidence, witness E's witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 55,632,040 to the Plaintiff as joint operators of D.

B. The actual operator of the Defendants’ assertion D is F, not the Defendants, a partner of Defendant B, and the Defendants lent to F only the name of the business operator. The Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that the trading partner is F.

In addition, Defendant B did not agree to enter into a liquor supply contract with the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant B’s claim is unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff received the business registration certificate issued by Defendant B’s business operator around July 2009 and supplied alcoholic beverages to D, and the Defendant A was registered as a joint business proprietor from March 1, 2015 to D from March 1, 2015, the Defendants should be deemed to be the party who entered into a goods contract with the Plaintiff.

In addition, in light of the above details of the Plaintiff’s supply of alcoholic beverages and the period of transaction, a liquor supply contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.