1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 65,00,000 won and 6% per annum from November 6, 2010 to January 11, 2013.

1. Determination on Defendant K&P General Construction Co., Ltd.

A. On April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff sold building materials, etc. in the name of “B”. On April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with Defendant K&P General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant K&P Construction”) to supply the building materials to the construction site located in “C” and supplied goods, such as dys, at the construction site from April 9, 2010 to October 15 of the same year. On March 31, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the total amount of unpaid goods at KRW 95,00,000 and the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 among them to the Plaintiff on April 7, 2011. Thus, according to the above recognition facts, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid goods price of KRW 65,00,000 and delay damages therefrom.

(hereinafter referred to as the "debt of this case")

On April 1, 2011, Defendant 2 asserted that Defendant 2’s debt of this case was extinguished since the Plaintiff agreed to accord and substitute payment of No. 203 (740,000,000) of the second apartment houses No. 2, E-House No. 2, 203 (740,000) in proportion to the amount of claim to eight corporate creditors related to the construction of the company including the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff agreed to the effect that Defendant 2’s debt of this case was paid in and paid to F, the representative of the creditors.

In light of the above facts, first of all, as to whether the above defendant agreed with the plaintiff to jointly pay for the debt amount of the above apartment house 203 in lieu of the repayment of the debt amount of this case with the other creditors, the above defendant's assertion on the payment for the above payment in kind is insufficient to acknowledge the assertion on the above payment in kind only with Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, witness G, F, and H evidence, and there is no other evidence to support it. Thus, the above defendant's argument on the payment in kind does not require further review.