1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 67,537,237 as well as 5% per annum from January 7, 2014 to September 18, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant Company received a subcontract for steel products from the Plaintiff Company and received steel products from the Plaintiff Company while performing construction works conducted by the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “C”). The Defendant Company was unable to pay the price for steel products to the Plaintiff Company on the ground that the construction cost was not fully paid from C.

Accordingly, Defendant Company: (a) to the Plaintiff Company on February 2, 2012; (b) to pay for steel products to the Plaintiff Company; and (c) to the Defendant Company the amount of KRW 73,537,207.

6. The Defendant B, the husband of the Defendant Company, agreed to repay up to August, and the Defendant B, the husband of the Defendant Company, jointly and severally guaranteed this.

B. The Defendant Company failed to comply with the reimbursement agreement on the ground that it was paid construction expenses by C.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company agreed to request the Plaintiff Company to pay the steel product price directly to the Plaintiff Company, and C also accepted the request.

C. As the Plaintiff Company received KRW 5,99,970 from C, the amount that has not been paid up to now is KRW 67,537,237 among the price debt for the steel products.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff Company exempted the Defendants from the Defendants’ obligations and provided the Defendants with an agreement to receive the said steel products directly from C, i.e., the Plaintiff Company and C with respect to the assumption of the Defendant’s obligation by contract between the Plaintiff Company and C.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that C merely accepted the above steel product payment obligation of the defendant company.

It is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the parties indicated in the contract of acceptance of the obligation if the assumption of the obligation is overlapped, and if it is not clear whether it is a discharge or a overlapping acceptance in the contract of acceptance of the obligation, it shall be considered to have been taken over repeatedly.