1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 94,835,536, and Defendant A with respect thereto from October 7, 2014, and Defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and installing pipes for agricultural purposes, and the Defendant A is the representative of C engaged in the wholesale and retail business of construction materials and the construction of plastic houses, and Defendant B is the head of Defendant A.

B. Around 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods with the content that the Plaintiff would continue to supply pipes to the Defendant A, and the Defendant B, as a joint and several surety with respect to the goods payment obligation against the Plaintiff, agreed to the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000.

C. On September 2, 2013, Defendant A: (a) repaid the remaining goods price obligations to the Plaintiff; (b) divided the remaining goods price obligations; and (c) prepared and issued a redemption plan to pay the remainder on or around March 2, 2014; (c) around April 2014, KRW 25,000,000; (d) around May 2014, KRW 25,000,000; and (e) around June 2014.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including a contract for the supply of goods, a repayment plan, and the defendants' seal impressions) are presumed to be authentic in the entire document. The defendants asserted that defendant A's mother and defendant B's satisfer Eul did not properly read the contents of the above goods supply contract and reimbursement plan, and affixed the seals of the defendants without the defendants' consent, and denies the authenticity of the above goods supply contract and reimbursement plan, but the witness D's testimony corresponding thereto is hard to believe, and there is no other evidence to recognize it) and the whole purport of the arguments, and the purport of the whole arguments.

2. The plaintiff sought payment of KRW 101,89,864 as the remaining goods price against the defendants. Thus, according to the above acknowledged facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining goods price to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff is part of the plaintiff, taking full account of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 12 (including each number).