A. On December 1, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to supply Defendant D Co., Ltd. 50 meters in diameter and 100 meters in diameter.

However, the gold-type, which is necessary for the creation of the above conduit, was provided by Defendant D Co., Ltd. and decided to produce the above conduit.

The unit price of the pipe section above was set at KRW 2,240 in the case of 50 meters, and KRW 3,360 in the case of 100 meters (hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and Defendant D traded 570 meters in rubbering and KRW 400 meters in rubbering.

2) Defendant B and D are the same as their representative.

3) The Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to terminate the instant goods supply contract around June 30, 2020.

Accordingly, the above defendant shall pay up to July 14, 2020 the price for the goods already supplied on June 1, 2020 and on the 12th of the same month, and shall pay up to 50m of the pipe-ro 50m of the pipe-ro 2,500, the pipe-ro 100m of the pipe-ro 2,500, the rubbering 50m of the pipe-ro 50m of the rubbering, 5,000, and 100m of the rubbering 5,00m of the rubbering.

was made.

4) The price for the goods supplied on June 1, 2020 and the 12th of the same month is 26,43,792 won in total.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B also held the Plaintiff jointly and severally liable for the obligation under the contract on the supply of the goods in this case.

It is reasonable to view it.

Accordingly, Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 26,43,792 for the goods supplied on June 1, 2020 and on the 12th of the same month, and shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,000, 500, 2,500, 2,500, 500 meters, 50 meters, rubbering, 50 meters, and 5,000,00 meters in rubbering.

was made.

Therefore, the above Defendants confirmed that they were manufactured by the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.