1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 55,416,00 to the Plaintiff and Defendant C with respect thereto from October 12, 2018 and Defendant D.

Around May 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a continuous commodity transaction contract with Defendant C. Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) around that time, issued a guarantee letter that guarantees the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the purchase price of goods to the Plaintiff from May 13, 2017 to December 13, 2017. Pursuant to the above commodity supply contract, the Plaintiff supplied the goods of KRW 60,390,000 on June 15, 2017, and the goods of KRW 10,510,735 on July 31, 2017, which were returned to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act may be deemed as having been led to the confession by the Defendants under Article 150 of the said Act, or may be included in the number of subparagraphs 1 through 7.

However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff is a person who has received the price for the goods of KRW 8,510,735 from Defendant C, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 12, 2018 to July 28, 2018, on the record that: (a) KRW 55,416,00 = (60,390,000 KRW 10,510,735 KRW - 6,974,000) - KRW 8,510,735 of the instant complaint against the Defendants.

In regard to this, Defendant C alleged to the effect that he had the assignee take over the above goods payment obligation while transferring the business to another person, and that the Defendant Company has no obligation to pay the goods since it guaranteed the above goods payment obligation. However, under the agreement or understanding with the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to deem that the assignee took over the above goods payment obligation as a discharge, and regardless of whether the Defendant Company guaranteed the above goods payment obligation, Defendant C bears the above goods payment obligation as the principal obligor. Therefore, the above argument by Defendant C is without merit.