Defendant D did not conclude the above goods supply contract with the Plaintiff, and furthermore, Defendant B and D concluded the above goods supply contract even if they were to do so.

Even if the Defendants decided to establish an agricultural company E (hereinafter “instant company”), and concluded a supply contract with the Plaintiff as an act necessary for its establishment, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff was a party to the instant company that will be incorporated in the future, not Defendant B and D.

2. According to the Plaintiff’s argument as to Defendant B and C, the fact that there is no dispute, and the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods equivalent to KRW 29,870,000 (hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”) with Defendant B and C, around July 28, 2014, including cooling equipment, shock rink equipment, shock rink equipment, and ice factoring, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”).

Therefore, pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act, Defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 29,870,000 won for the purchase price of the goods under the instant goods supply contract and damages for delay thereof, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 15, 2015 to the day following the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from February 25, 2015 to the day of full payment.

3. On the premise that the Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant D was concluded between Defendant D and the instant goods supply contract, the Plaintiff also pays the instant goods supply price and damages for delay to Defendant D.