1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 49,124,00 and the interest rate thereon from April 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The following facts are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) between the plaintiff, defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant Co., Ltd.") and defendant B, and there is no counter-proof, and the plaintiff and defendant C are deemed to have led to the confession of the same defendant.

(1) On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant Company on the supply of electronic parts to the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company entered into such agreement on the payment of goods to the Plaintiff on the 60th day from the last day of the month to which the supply date belongs.

(2) Defendant B and C agreed that the Defendant Company will be liable by converting the credit payment obligation that the Defendant Company would have to have to pay to the Plaintiff into an individual obligation pursuant to the above Convention.

(3) The Plaintiff supplied electronic parts to the Defendant Company by July 2015 pursuant to the above agreement, and the outstanding amount of the credit goods is KRW 49,124,00.

B. According to the above facts, barring special circumstances, Defendant Company is the principal obligor of the above product price obligation, and Defendant B and C are jointly and severally joint and several suretys, and as a joint and several surety, Defendant B and C are liable to pay the Plaintiff the above product price of KRW 49,124,00 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 April 27, 2016 to the date on which the payment order in this case was served last to the Defendants, as sought by the Plaintiff, as the payment order in this case was the day following

As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted that the above product price obligation is merely an obligation of the Defendant Company and that it is not an obligation of the Defendant B. However, Defendant B’s assertion that “the above product price obligation is not an obligation of the Defendant Company, but is jointly responsible between the representative director B and C2, and is converted into an individual obligation.” The Defendant prepared the evidence No. 1, which is written by the Defendant B.