1. The defendants, among the parts against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

The plaintiff is a company that sells electrical appliances, etc., and the defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant company") is a company that designs and supervises electricity, fire-fighting, information and communications, and telecommunications, and the defendant C is the representative director of the defendant company.

From February 2, 2010 to October 2014, the Plaintiff supplied electrical appliances equivalent to KRW 187,364,355 in total to the Defendant Company. The Plaintiff received return of goods equivalent to KRW 5,258,451 from the Defendant Company and received reimbursement of KRW 128,847,098.

On November 5, 2014, the Defendants issued a balance certificate (hereinafter “instant balance certificate”) with the content that the Defendants are obligated to verify the existence of KRW 53,258,00 as the price of the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 187,364,355 - KRW 5,258,451 - KRW 128,847,098, and KRW 128,847,098) and jointly pay it (hereinafter “instant balance certificate”).

Meanwhile, on August 5, 2014, Defendant Company A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) drafted a written agreement to divide the electrical construction business of Defendant Co-Defendant A to merge with A, and completed the merger registration on October

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7 through 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each serial number), the entire purport of the pleadings [the fact that the defendants signed in the balance sheet No. 3-1 of this case is not a dispute between the parties, and thus the authenticity of the entire document is recognized. As to this, the defendants asserted that the content part of the document after only signing the defendants was delivered to the plaintiff in blank, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this fact] According to the above fact of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay from November 6, 2014, which is the day following the date on which the balance sheet of this case is prepared, to the plaintiff in blank, to the extent that there is no evidence to acknowledge this fact].

The defendants' assertion, etc.