1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 193,740,820 as well as the interest rate from April 8, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who manufactures and sells electric wire protection pipes, accessories, etc. with the name of D, and Defendant B and Defendant C are individual entrepreneurs who sell materials and communications materials in their trade names. 2) The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants for the supply of goods with the terms that the Plaintiff would supply the electric equipment, etc. manufactured by the Plaintiff from March 2013 to March 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendants with electric equipment, etc. from March 2013 to March 2014.

3) The Plaintiff did not pay part of the amount of the goods, and requested the return of the goods supplied to the Defendants’ workplace. On March 18, 2014, the Defendants signed a self-written signature on the purchase ledger (Evidence A 2) stating that “The total balance is KRW 193,740,820, after deducting KRW 67,616,38 of the amount of the total purchase price, from the total purchase price, and deducting KRW 193,740,820, the total balance is confirmed between the F Representative and the acquirer.”

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 193,740,820, and 20% interest per annum from April 8, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the following day after the payment order of this case was served on the Plaintiff.

2. The defendants' assertion as to the defendants' assertion that if the plaintiff prevented the entry of the defendants' business place and did not pay in lump sum the balance of the goods claimed by the plaintiff, all the goods and the house owned by the defendants shall be transferred to the plaintiff, and the balance shall not be considered to be consistent with the order by coercion, and the remaining amount shall not be considered to be a notarial act, and therefore, the defendants' assertion cannot be recognized as the unpaid goods amount entered in the purchase place ledger. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus