1. The plaintiff, the defendant corporation A, and C are jointly and severally 125,291,572 won, and the defendant Eul are jointly and severally and severally with the above defendants.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From December 1, 2015 to May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied a ice forest to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). However, the Defendant Co., Ltd. did not pay KRW 125,291,672 to the Plaintiff.

B. On July 24, 2017, Defendant C drafted a letter of commitment to repay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff.

C. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) whose representative director was Defendant C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd”) issued to the Plaintiff each electronic bill with the face value of 30,000,000,000 on July 25, 2017, the maturity date of September 30, 2017, the face value of 50,000,000, the maturity date of September 22, 2017, and the maturity date of 50,000,000, and the face value of 50,000,000,000, and the maturity date of December 31, 2017. The representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd issued the said electronic bill with the endorsement on the said electronic bill.

The plaintiff presented a payment proposal on the maturity date of each electronic bill, but only the electronic bill was approved at a par value of KRW 30,000,000, and the remaining electronic bill was in default.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, Defendant A and C are jointly and severally liable 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 March 17, 2018 to the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to the above amount of KRW 100,000,000, and each of the above amounts, jointly and severally with the said Defendants.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that, upon the Defendant Company’s transfer of its business to the Nonparty Company, the Plaintiff reported the instant goods payment obligation as a bankruptcy claim against the Nonparty Company and received the full amount thereof at the meeting of creditors, the Defendant Company’s goods payment obligation against the Plaintiff was extinguished. However, the grounds alleged by the Defendants are alone.