1. Defendant A and B Co., Ltd. jointly and severally file for the Plaintiff KRW 163,104,810 and the Defendant A Co., Ltd. with respect thereto on January 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the Plaintiff is a company that runs the Gohap and timber manufacturing business, and the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a company that runs the Gohap and timber wholesale business.

Defendant B is an internal director of Defendant A, and Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant B and was an auditor of Defendant A by March 29, 2014.

Defendant D is an employee of Defendant A and a person who established E engaged in the manufacturing business of wood, etc. and wholesale and retail business on February 1, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a goods transaction contract and a joint and several sureties contract with Defendant A on November 2008, when entering into a goods transaction contract with Defendant A, supplied the Gohap manufactured or imported by the Plaintiff to Defendant A, and the price was paid in full in cash.

At that time, Defendant B and C signed the joint and several sureties contract (hereinafter “instant joint and several sureties contract”) with the Plaintiff stating that “The Defendant A shall jointly and severally perform all of the obligations that the Defendant A owes to the Plaintiff due to the transaction under this contract” and signed and sealed the said contract document stating that “The Defendant A shall be jointly and severally liable with the Plaintiff.”

C. The amount of the unpaid goods was closed on or around March 9, 2015, and the amount of the goods that Defendant A had not paid to the Plaintiff at the time of closure reaches KRW 163,104,810.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant A and B: constructive confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act), Defendant C and D have no dispute, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of pages) and the overall purport of the pleading [in the case of evidence No. 2-1 (transaction No. 2-1), the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established as the whole due to the lack of dispute over the part of the seal No. 2-1. Defendant C has a defense that this document was forged by Defendant B, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it] 2. According to the above fact of recognition as to Defendant A and B, according to the above fact of recognition as to Defendant A and B, Defendant A and B shall jointly and severally pay 163,104,810 won for the amount of goods unpaid to the Plaintiff, and Defendant