1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid is revoked.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim: (a) on January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods, such as a transparent vinyl, yellow vinyl, etc., with the Defendants (hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”); (b) from that to December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the said goods to the Defendants; and (c) the fact that the supply price that the Plaintiff had not received from the Defendants was totaled 19,34,080, does not conflict between the parties; or (d) the purport of the entire pleadings is recognized based on the evidence No. 1, 2-1, and 2.

According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 19,344,080 won payable under the instant goods supply contract and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from February 14, 2019, following the day when the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the above Defendant; and Defendant C, from February 12, 2019, following the day when the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the above Defendant, that is, the dispute over the existence and scope of each Defendants’ obligations, from February 12, 2019 until December 13, 2019, which is the date the judgment of the court of first instance, and from the following day until the day of full payment.

(2) The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ claim against the Defendants for damages for delay due to the agreement on the supply of the goods of this case was made on December 23, 2017 on the day following the end of transaction under the agreement on the supply of the goods of this case, but the obligations under the agreement on the supply of the goods of this case were not fixed by the time limit, and the obligations without the time limit are attributable only to the obligee’s claim. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff lawful claim for the payment of the above money was made prior to the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and there is no reason to deem that the Plaintiff lawful claim for the payment of the above money was made against the Defendants.