1. Defendant A and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 85,59,919 and the Plaintiff with full payment from March 25, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. D and E, a joint manager of Defendant Rehabilitation Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Southern Construction”), contracted F&D from Suwon City, and subcontracted the construction of metal structure to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) on April 8, 2013.

B. Defendant A on July 2, 2013

In order to prepare materials necessary for port construction, the Plaintiff and Aluminum market supply contract were entered into, and the unit price was agreed to be applied to the linkage application of the rate of increase or decrease per month by notification of change in the supply price of raw materials by raw material producers or agents (hereinafter “instant supply contract”), and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant A’s obligation to supply goods.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant A’s person in charge of financial management is the “written confirmation of balance” presented by the Plaintiff that “as of November 12, 2013, G confirmed that the amount of supplied goods of this case was not paid in KRW 85,59,919, out of KRW 187,986,70 of the amount of supplied goods of this case as of November 12, 2013.

A) The Defendant A’s name tag was stamped. 【The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, and Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The part of the claim against the defendant A and C

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The gist of the Defendant A and C’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff agreed to supply materials at a price lower than that of other companies at the time of the instant supply contract, but did not unilaterally set a unit price and issue a tax invoice without accurately verifying the volume; (b) as if the Plaintiff’s employees were internal decision-making; and (c) obtained the Plaintiff’s seal on the instant balance sheet.

Therefore, Defendant A and C are not obliged to pay more than 22,807,680 won out of the price of delivered goods of this case.

B. The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 11 through 15.