1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 85,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 31, 2009 to December 28, 2014.

1. The facts constituting the premise for judgment are as follows: (a) in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff appears to be the representative director of the "E"; (b) the term "E" was made on Oct. 19, 2009; (c) the term "E" was made by the "F Heating Point Contract" referring to "B"; (d) defendant B was printed as the representative director of the "D" at the end of the above contract; (d) the term was written by the "E"; and (d) the plaintiff was written by the representative director of the "E" under his name; (e) the plaintiff was written by the private chain business operated by the plaintiff; (d) the main contents of the above contract were to be supplied with the "E" total amount of money deposited from "D; and (e) the plaintiff is not entitled to receive the above "E" total amount of money deposited within 130 million won and 400 million won after paying the above total amount of money deposited within 50 million won.

2. The parties' assertion

A. If the gist of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim is the Plaintiff’s main cause of claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the other party who entered into the instant total sales contract is jointly the Defendants or jointly and severally guaranteed by either of the Defendant and another Defendant who is a party to the contract, and that the Defendants did not perform the above supply obligation even after having received the above initial supply quantity, and that the Plaintiff is seeking the return of the price already paid to the Defendants due to its restitution.

B. On the summary of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants’ above contract is the Defendant.