1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable and acceptable.

2. As to the assertion made by this court

A. The plaintiffs asserted that this Court also ordered, accepted, or inspected ready-mixed in addition to the issuance of the tax invoice, and that the plaintiffs continued to supply ready-mixed by recognizing B as the opposite contractual party, the representative of the instant joint supply and demand company, and that even if D uses ready-mixed in excess of the design quantity, it is not due to the negligence of D, and it is not due to the problems between B and D, and therefore, the plaintiffs were not known at all. <3> D was actually operated as the same company as B, and the plaintiffs were only to issue the tax invoice upon the request of B, and the tax invoice was also supplied to B. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay the price of the instant ready-mixed to the plaintiffs.

B. According to the evidence adopted by the first instance court, the first instance court acknowledged that B ordered the Plaintiffs to give an order for ready-mixed required for the instant construction work, received it, and supplied it to D after examining, and D did not participate in the procedure of ordering, accepting, and examining ready-mixed.

However, in light of the following circumstances, as a result of the fact-finding on the above evidence and evidence Nos. 7-12, 14, and 15, and the fact-finding on D of this Court, the Plaintiffs agreed to provide D with D for direct supply of ready-mixed as to the part where D used ready-mixed in excess of the design quantity stipulated in the instant subcontract agreement, and accordingly, to bear the price of D.