1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 471,396,650, and Defendant B with respect thereto from October 7, 2015, and Defendant B.

1. Whether the authenticity of evidence A No. 10 is recognized;

A. The defendant association’s seal affixed with the summary of the defendants’ assertion No. 10 is not the defendant association’s seal but the defendant B’s seal is not the defendant’s seal.

In addition, on June 1, 2013, the date of the preparation stated in the supply contract, which was written on June 1, 2013, that C, D, and E was operating F, not the defendant partnership, and that the HD Machine & 5, which was written on No. 10 No. 5, did not coincide with the date of preparation of the supply contract, as it appears that the date does not coincide with the date of preparation of the supply contract. The Gap evidence 10 is a forged document.

B. Considering the following circumstances, the authenticity of No. 10 is recognized when comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of No. 9, the testimony of witnesses G and the overall purport of the pleadings:

① Defendant B, the representative of the Defendant Union, has signed on the column for joint and several sureties A’s certificate No. 10, and Defendant B appeared on the fifth date for pleading and stated that the above signature was his own pen.

② At around October 2014, A’s evidence No. 10 was prepared by G and Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s employee, at the F’s president’s office. Defendant B, as the representative of the Defendant Union, directly sealed the name plate of the Defendant Union and the official seal of the representative, and testified that Defendant B signed the name, address, resident registration number, etc. in the column of joint and several sureties.

③ Although the Defendants did not dispute the authenticity, the Defendants signed and sealed the name cards of the Defendant Union, such as the evidence No. 10, and the Defendant B signed the agreement.

④ As delineated below, a supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Union was concluded around October 2014, and the Defendant Union, prior to the Defendant Union, intended to operate F Council members and take over all the obligations against the Plaintiff of the H Union that was supplied with goods by the Plaintiff from August 13, 2012. However, only on the date on which the contract was entered, written on June 2013, which is the time when the operator was changed.