1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 36,942,714 and Defendant B Co., Ltd. from November 17, 2016.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff supplied personal seat, etc. to the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) from June 30, 2014 to February 6, 2016, and the amount of unpaid goods to the Plaintiff of the Defendant Company reaches KRW 36,942,714, and ② Defendant C agreed on July 2, 2016 to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unpaid goods by the final payment by September 2, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 36,942,714 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that there was no process of consultation on the amount of claims, and that the Defendant Company cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim since the case was in progress with the District Court 2017 U.S. 501.

However, in light of each of the statements in Gap evidence 5 and 6, it can be determined that the plaintiff and the defendants have undergone several verification procedures on the amount of the unpaid goods price, and there was no consultation process on the amount of the unpaid goods price.

The plaintiff's claim cannot be a ground to block the plaintiff's claim.

On the other hand, the appellate court's decision to commence simplified rehabilitation was rendered on March 21, 2017 in the case 2017 Mahap501 against the defendant company, but the decision to discontinue simplified rehabilitation was also rendered on June 9, 2017 in this court. Thus, the simplified rehabilitation procedure cannot be a ground to block the plaintiff's claim due to the termination of the procedure.

Ultimately, the defendants' arguments are without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.