1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 295,154,520 and the period from August 1, 2014 to December 1, 2014.

1. Basic facts

가. 당사자의 관계 원고는 철강 및 철강재 판매업 등을 목적으로 하는 회사이고, 피고 주식회사 A(이하 ‘피고 A’이라 한다)은 토목건축공사업 등을 목적으로 하는 회사이며, 피고 B은 피고 주식회사 A의 대표이사이다.

B. On April 30, 2014, the instant goods transaction agreement and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed with Defendant A entered into a goods transaction agreement with the effect that the Plaintiff supplied steel products to Defendant A, and Defendant A entered into a goods transaction agreement with the Plaintiff by the end of the month following the month in which the date of receipt of steel products falls (hereinafter “instant goods transaction agreement”). On the same day, Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the goods transaction obligation that Defendant A owes to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant goods transaction agreement.

C. According to the instant goods transaction agreement, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant A with steel materials worth KRW 295,154,520 during the period from May 9, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, and the purport of all entries and arguments in Gap's evidence No. 1 through 3

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 1, 2014 to December 1, 2014 when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff from August 1, 2014, which is the day following the last payment date of the said payment date, and from the next day to the day of full payment, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. The Defendants’ defense, Edice X-A, which, in accordance with the goods transaction agreement of this case, took place as a discharge of all the Defendant’s obligation to purchase goods against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants are not liable to the Plaintiff for the purchase price of goods under the goods transaction agreement of this case.

B. Whether the assumption of the relevant legal doctrine is exempt from liability is overlapped.