1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants jointly and severally filed against the Plaintiff KRW 11,79,483 and KRW 11,676,610 among them.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the warehouse business operator, and the defendants are jointly operating the business place of the trade name D, and those engaging in the intermediate wholesale business of agricultural products.

The Plaintiff entered into an agricultural product storage contract with the Defendants and kept agricultural products owned by the Defendants from around April 25, 2010 to April 25, 2013 in the Plaintiff’s warehouse, but the Defendants paid only part of the storage fees until April 22, 2013, and did not pay the remainder storage fees of KRW 11,676,610. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 11,676,610 and delay damages therefrom.

B. Defendant B’s assertion is a collector of agricultural products, who ships agricultural products to warehouse operators like the Plaintiff and supplies them to the intermediate wholesalers of agricultural products such as Defendant B. The party who entered into the instant storage contract with the Plaintiff is only Defendant C and is not Defendant B.

C. According to the facts that the Plaintiff is the merchant operating the warehouse business, and Defendant B is the merchant operating the intermediate wholesale business in agricultural products under the name of Defendant B, the fact that Defendant B and Defendant C are married with each other is without dispute between the parties, and according to the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 7 of the Plaintiff’s Evidence (including each number of branches), the result of the Plaintiff’s question and the whole purport of the pleadings, the Defendants sought the Plaintiff and requested the Plaintiff to store the agricultural products in the Plaintiff’s warehouse, and the storage fees were remitted from the Defendant B’s account to the Plaintiff. The storage fees that the Plaintiff did not receive relating to the storage contract of this case are 11,676,610.

According to the above facts, the relationship between Defendant B and Defendant C falls under the partnership relationship under the Civil Act, that is, the partnership relationship under the Civil Act, and it is reasonable to view that all the Defendants are the parties to the storage contract of this case.

On the other hand, however,