1. Defendant B:

A. From December 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s Designating Party KRW 5 million and its related thereto:

(b) Appointers D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The designated party to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff A") is the joint contractor, the selected party D (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff D") is the wooden party, and the selected party E (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff E") is the operator of the electric utility.

B. Defendant B is a person who actually operates the interior business with the trade name of “F”, and Defendant C is a representative of the said business as Defendant B’s son.

C. The Plaintiffs concluded a franchise agency contract with Defendant B, and performed the Human Data Service. D.

In order to settle the construction cost under the above test, Defendant B issued to Plaintiff A one sheet of the household check ( check number I) on November 30, 2013, the par value of H issuance and the payment date of H, ② On November 9, 2013, one copy of the household check ( check number J) on November 9, 2013, ③ the Plaintiff E is KRW 5 million in the face value of H issuance, ③ the date of November 16, 2013, KRW 5 million in the face value of H issuance, KRW 5 million in the household check on November 16, 2013, KRW 5 million in the face value, and KRW 5 million in the face value and KRW 5 million in the payment date, and KRW 1 copy of the household check on December 14, 2013, respectively, but each of the above checks was not paid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of claim 1, Defendant B is liable to pay to the Plaintiffs the settlement amount of construction cost equivalent to the face value of each of the above checks as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, from the day of service of the copy of each of the complaint in this case.

Furthermore, Defendant C did not have been involved in concluding the interior contract with Defendant C, but Defendant C also allowed Defendant C, his father, to use the name of Defendant C’s personal business chain F.