1. Defendant LASC: (a) KRW 59,504,500 for the Plaintiff and its related amount from April 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of ready-mixed with the Defendant, and supplied and received the price for the supply of ready-mixed to the said Defendant. Upon the said Defendant’s request, the Defendant, as a contracting party, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 57,492,600 as the price for ready-mixed on September 6, 2014.

In addition, although Defendant LA did not directly conclude a direct contract with the Plaintiff, it is obligated to pay KRW 2,01,900 to the Plaintiff, as it did not sell back to the Plaintiff several times, separately from Defendant Y case.

B. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff is a corporation mainly engaged in Amcons and ready-mixed manufacturing business, etc.; Defendant Cmpis are a corporation mainly engaged in construction business, civil engineering business, etc.; Defendant Cmpis are the principal contractor of a three-type temporary terminal construction business; Defendant LA, as a corporation mainly engaged in construction business, house construction and sales business, etc.; Defendant LA, as a corporation awarded a contract for temporary construction works, designated construction works, landscaping works, other construction works, and ancillary civil engineering works from Defendant Cmpis to Defendant Cmpis. (2) On May 9, 2014, Defendant Cmpis concluded a contract for the supply of ready-mixed with the Plaintiff, and ordered the Plaintiff to use ready-mixed from the same date on which they were ordered to the Plaintiff on the same date; and thereafter, each time they were ordered to pay the price thereafter.

3) On May 30, 2014, Defendant YJ entered into a subcontract on the part of the construction work under the above paragraph (a) with Defendant ELD on May 30, 2014, but concluded the modified contract on July 18, 2014. The main content of the modified contract was, unlike the first subcontract, that Defendant ELD et al., instead of Defendant ELD’s construction on the part of the construction work under the above paragraph (a) directly bears the burden on the Plaintiff et al.