1. The Defendants jointly and severally serve to the Plaintiff KRW 32,950,800 and the following day after the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of scrap iron and non-ferrous iron with the trade name of "E", and the defendants together carry out construction works of demolition of a building, and supply the scrap metals from the site of demolition of a building to the plaintiff.

On September 2013, the Plaintiff agreed between the Defendants and the Plaintiff to pay KRW 80 million to the Defendants for the purpose of the scrap metal, and the Defendants agreed to supply the Plaintiff with KRW 80 million from the construction site of the building demolition in the south Sea Water.

Accordingly, on September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million to Defendant B’s account.

On September 14, 2013, the Defendants supplied the Plaintiff 6,290 kilograms above, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B issued a tax invoice of KRW 47,049,200 calculated as KRW 6,800 per kilogram1 kilogram20 on the same day (i.e., supply price of KRW 42,772,00 kilograms 6,290 x 6,290 x 6,800 value-added tax of KRW 4,277,200).

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendants who jointly concluded an agreement on the supply of scrap metal jointly and severally have the obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff (the defendant Eul is the defendant Eul, April 11, 2015, and February 14, 2015) to the day of complete payment.

As to this, Defendant B paid KRW 5 million to Defendant C, it is alleged that five million won should be deducted from the price to be returned. Accordingly, according to the evidence No. 1, Defendant B paid KRW 5 million to Defendant B on November 18, 2013, but the fact that Defendant B paid KRW 5 million to F on November 18, 2013 can be acknowledged. However, this fact alone is difficult to deem that the obligation to return the price to the Plaintiff was performed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.