1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 128,00,000 and Defendant A with respect thereto from October 17, 2013, and Defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. agricultural products washing, drying, and processing apparatus.

The Defendants are vice-party owners, and Defendant A is a person registered as a business entity of “C” by lending the name of the business entity to Defendant B, his father, and Defendant B is the actual operator of “C”.

B. On May 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the manufacture and painting of steel scrap for the storage of agricultural products to be supplied to the distributors, and on May 2012, the Plaintiff re-subcontracted the manufacture and painting of 4,00 iron scrap to E and Defendant A as the representative of E and Defendant A.

C. Around May 18, 2012, Defendant B leased 4 Ra in the main factory of F from F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) under the name of C representative.

Defendant B supplied materials and tools from the Plaintiff on June 15, 2012 to the Plaintiff in the process of manufacturing and painting steel scrap, and supplied them to the Plaintiff within a payment period due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to C or F, and provided each letter of performance of the return of private materials and tools made in the name of C with the seal affixed by Defendant A, where it is impossible to manufacture them due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to C or F, the materials and tools paid by the Plaintiff (including the products) shall be returned to the Plaintiff without delay at the Plaintiff’s request for return.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul's Evidence No. 3, witness G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was re-subcontracted from the Plaintiff for the manufacture and painting of the said steel scrap, but did not complete the work at the expiration of the delivery date due to the fact that it was impossible to do the painting work of the said steel scrap due to the circumstances of the above leased plant.

As a result, the plaintiff manufactures steel scrap.