Defendant C Co., Ltd. is 43,719,870 won to the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from April 1, 2017 to March 4, 2020.

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”)

A. Indication of Claims: On February 16, 2016, Defendant C ordered the Plaintiff to supply ready-mixed, and paid the price by settling the accounts at the end of each month; and thereafter, Defendant C supplied ready-mixed by the Plaintiff by February 18, 2017, but did not pay part of the price.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of goods 43,719,870 won and the amount of delayed damages from April 1, 2017, following the payment date.

(b) Judgment deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D

A. The Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C, on the ground that Defendant D ordered ready-mixed with Defendant C and supplied ready-mixed with the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the price for the goods.

On the other hand, Defendant D asserts that it did not enter into a contract with the Plaintiff or receive goods from the Plaintiff.

B. According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff affixed the rubber and seal impression in the name of the Defendants on February 18, 2016 in the column of the “main contractor” in the Reconst sheet of the Plaintiff on February 18, 2016.

However, each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including numbers), which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, is, namely, the following circumstances: ① Defendant C is written in the column for the “transaction name” of the head of the Lesacon sales outlet submitted by the plaintiff; the plaintiff issued tax invoices related to the supply of ready-mixed only to Defendant C; ② the plaintiff affixed the seal impression of Defendant D’s owner of Defendant C’s pre-interest interest at the site; ② the plaintiff affixed the seal impression on the order of the above Lesacon.

However, the E affixed his seal impression as an employee of Defendant D.

there is no evidence to determine the person, and even if so, there is such a fact.

Even if a representative director is not a representative director, the order of defendant D's name is written.