1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: 162,04,035 won, and 6% per annum from March 11, 2014 to November 14, 2014.

From January 1, 2013 to January 30, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied 617,925,000 won and coins to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), and there is no dispute over the fact that the amount of goods not paid by Defendant B reaches KRW 162,04,035, and as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant B is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 162,04,035 won and the amount of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from March 11, 2014 to November 14, 2014, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and damages for delay calculated at 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff's judgment against the defendant A, the defendant corporation A (hereinafter "the defendant corporation") received the goods order from the head of the factory C and the head of the management department D, etc. and received the acceptance certificate from the defendant Eul, and the branch of the defendant Eul is the side of the head office of the defendant Eul and the factory is also used, and the defendant Eul is also employed. Thus, even if the plaintiff issued the tax invoice arising from the transaction with the defendant Eul in the defendant Eul, it is merely an issuance of the tax invoice for the tax convenience upon the defendant Eul's request, and thus, the defendant Gap who is substantially identical with the defendant Eul is jointly and severally liable to pay the goods price.

However, even if the Plaintiff’s sales trustee, as alleged by the Plaintiff, was confirmed to have taken over the goods from the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s sales trustee, delivered the goods to the Defendant and received them from the employees, as recognized by the respective statements in subparagraphs 1 through 9, in light of the fact that all the amount of the goods incurred in the said transaction was paid from the Defendant B and all the tax invoices were issued in the Defendant B, including the witness E’s testimony.