1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,265,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 20, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 30, 2014, the Defendants were awarded a contract for the production of three kinds of presses (infengine fr, fr in finf lh, br in finf fr fr fr, bkke r, hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant gold penalty” in total) from Asan Co., Ltd. for KRW 85,690,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B. On July 30, 2014, the Defendants re-subcontracted the instant gold production amount of KRW 38,950,000 to the Plaintiff.

C. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the production of the instant gold bullion and delivered it to the Defendants. The Defendants paid KRW 11,685,000 out of the price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 1 and purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as the cause of the claim, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the remaining 27,265,000 won (=38,950,000 won - 11,685,000 won) out of the amount of the gold in this case and damages for delay.

B. The Defendants of the Defendant’s defense, while supplying the instant gold mold, spent KRW 18,251,750 as costs to directly perform the sampling, and incurred KRW 17,711,300 to repair it due to the defect in the instant gold mold, and incurred KRW 43,753,050 in total, including the Plaintiff’s delayed supply of KRW 7,790,00 as liquidated damages, due to the Plaintiff’s delayed supply of sampling, and thus, the said damage claim and the instant gold price claim are offset against an equal amount.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to repair sampling or defects after receiving the instant gold paper. At the time, the Defendants and the Plaintiff were working in the same factory, and thus, there was a defect in the sampling or the gold paper of this case, sufficient remuneration.