1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 40,388,960 and Defendant A from June 1, 2016 to October 21, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells ready-mixeds.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of ready-mixed with Defendant A, from January 21, 2016 to April 28, 2016, and agreed to pay the goods in 921 cubic meters from January 21, 2016 to April 28, 2016.

C. Defendant B, as the owner, set the highest guarantee amount of Defendant A’s payment obligation against the Plaintiff as KRW 60,000,000. D.

Of total sales proceeds of the above 6,388,960 won, KRW 26,00,000 for 66,388,960 for the goods unpaid by the Defendants at present are KRW 40,38,960 for the goods unpaid by the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, Defendant A is the principal debtor. Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay 40,388,960 won for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff as joint and several sureties and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under each Civil Act from June 1, 2016 to October 21, 2016 for Defendant A, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and from October 20, 2016 for Defendant B, who is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and from October 20, 2016 to the full payment date. Defendant B is liable to pay 60,000 won per annum under each Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the full payment date.

B. The Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants’ assertion was prohibited from paying the Plaintiff the price of goods as the construction completion was delayed due to the problem of Defendant B’s financial flow, which is the owner of the building. The Plaintiff’s difficulty in raising funds was aggravated by executing provisional seizure at the site. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the above circumstances alleged by the Defendants do not constitute justifiable grounds for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3...