1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 90,690,374 won and 6% per annum from April 19, 2016 to August 12, 2016.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff supplied the defendants with agricultural materials and equipment, and did not receive KRW 90,690,374 out of the supply price, and the defendants prepared and issued a confirmation document certifying the balance of the public fund payment to the plaintiff around February 2016. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 90,690,374 won and its amount from April 19, 2016 to August 12, 2016, the date on which the defendants delivered a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date on which the defendants delivered the copy of the complaint of this case, until August 12, 2016.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay at 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from November 20, 2015 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the instant complaint. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff agreed on the payment date, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff agreed on the payment date, the Plaintiff’s claim for the above public fund payment against the Defendants is liable for delay from the time when the Defendants was requested for performance. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff claimed the payment of the above public fund to the Defendants prior to the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages

As to this, the Defendants did not actually supply the Defendants with some of the agricultural materials and equipment.

Although it is alleged that the supply price was excessive, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, each of the claims against the plaintiff against the defendants of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.