1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 12, Eul evidence No. 1 to 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including the serial numbers) and Eul evidence No. 1, and testimony of witness A of the first instance trial.

Around May 30, 2014, Defendant Seohae Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seohae Construction”) concluded a subcontract agreement (hereinafter “instant subcontract agreement”) with Korea with respect to the construction of a new building of the Seoul Eastern District Court Office (hereinafter “instant construction”). On or around May 30, 2014, it concluded a subcontract agreement (hereinafter “instant subcontract agreement”) with Korea as to the said part of the steel frame construction among the said construction works. The specific process of the said subcontract is as follows.

(1) First, Han ethyl purchased steel materials from steel wholesalers or retailers, including the Plaintiff, and supplies them to Defendant Pene.

(2) As to the steel materials supplied by Defendant Spoen to be suitable for the instant construction work, Defendant Spoen’s attachment and processing of Bret (the above Defendant asserts that the amount of 30% of the value of the steel materials which are easy to perform as above) pursuant to the design drawings provided by Defendant Spoen to supply them at the construction site.

(3) Han ethyl will perform the work of assembling and installing steel products processed and supplied as above.

B. On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a steel product supply contract with Hanhoethyl, and supplied steel products with 123 tons from June 2014 to July 2014 to the Defendant Posib’s factory (683-37, Dopho-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do) designated by Hanhoethyl. At the time of the contract for the supply of the said products, the Plaintiff is deemed to have the ownership of steel products supplied to the Plaintiff, which was paid in cash for the price of the goods, or supplied until a bill or check is settled normally.