1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 56,309,160, and 5% per annum from November 4, 2014 to October 21, 2015.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a liquor supply contract with Defendant B, and supplied alcoholic beverages from April 14, 2010 to the “E” restaurant operated by the said Defendant in the name of wife D (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On August 29, 2014, Defendant B entered into a contract with Defendant C to transfer the instant restaurant at KRW 70,000,000 under the name of Defendant C (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of business”), which is the following terms and conditions of the contract.

By arranging the overdue wages of the head of the office for five months of rent and five months, the promise is to transfer all the powers of the restaurant of this case to Defendant C and to close the business until September 12, 2014: Provided, That it is recognized that all the liabilities of the former D are irrelevant to Defendant C, and instead, to succeed to all the employees of the restaurant of this case without dismissal.

Meanwhile, even after the transfer of the above business, the Plaintiff continued to supply alcoholic beverages to the restaurant in this case, and the Defendant C paid all the proceeds of alcoholic beverages supplied to the Plaintiff, and prior to that, KRW 56,309,160 out of the proceeds of alcoholic beverages supplied to the Defendant B remains without yet being recovered.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the liquor price of KRW 56,309,160 under the above liquor supply contract and delay damages.

As to this, Defendant B asserts that since the operator of the restaurant of this case is D, the above liquor payment is also required to be made D, and he does not have any obligation.

However, in full view of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 7 and 8 and all the circumstances revealed in the entire pleadings of the instant case, the actual operator of the instant restaurant was Defendant B and D was only the name of the Defendant who is the husband of the instant case.