1. Defendant C’s 65,241,00 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from May 14, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2011, Defendant C registered his/her business with the trade name “E” in Defendant B’s name, and was engaged in the furniture manufacturing business. From December 2012, Defendant C registered his/her business with the trade name “F” and engaged in the furniture manufacturing business.

The plaintiff is registered as a business operator under the trade name of "G" and is engaged in the wholesale and retail business of non-satis.

B. Defendant C traded with the customer using the bank account under Defendant B’s name.

C. The transaction partners of H households, I companies, etc., “E” and “F” entered “E” and “E” and “F Company C Return” and “F Company C Return” in the transaction specification.

On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff and Defendant C drafted a written confirmation confirming that the price of the goods “E” is KRW 65,241,000, and the price of the goods “F” is KRW 23,917,900, by January 23, 2012, when settling the price of the goods for the past transaction.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 3 through 5, Eul's evidence 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant C, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 65,241,000 won due to unpaid goods to the Plaintiff, as well as the amount at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 14, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

B. Defendant B and D’s claim 1) The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B and D jointly operated the “E” with Defendant C, and thus, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the price for the goods. However, it is insufficient to recognize the price solely on the basis of each of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2 and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Furthermore, the Plaintiff leased the name to Defendant C, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable for the nominal name pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.