On January 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of ready-mixed (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and agreed to “cash settlement made on the basis of cash settlement made on the end of the following month and the 30th of the following month” with respect to the payment period for the payment of the price for ready-mixed (hereinafter “instant contract”). The rate of delay damages was set at 20% per annum.

According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed to Defendant B from January 26, 2018 to March 22, 2019, and Defendant B did not pay KRW 211,458,820 to the supply date from January 26, 2018 to March 22, 2019.

As to the instant contract, Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation for the payment of ready-mixed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (if there are serial numbers, including each serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)'s each statement, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the grounds for the claim. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 211,458,820 won payable to the plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 1, 2019, which the plaintiff seeks after the payment date for the portion supplied to the plaintiff (as for defendant B, April 9, 2020; defendant C, Oct. 6, 2020; defendant D, April 13, 2020); and each of the following days until the date of full payment.

The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion: (a) the Plaintiff paid only part of the price while supplying ready-mixed pursuant to the instant contract; and (b) the remainder payment was agreed to receive the loan when the construction work on the supply site of ready-mixed is completed and the loan is performed; and (c) there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

The conclusion is.