1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 69,952,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 4, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. A. Around July 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) to supply ready-mixeds manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff, and goods supply contracts with the Plaintiff to continue to supply asphalts. Defendant B and C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s goods payment obligations against the Plaintiff. 2) From July 29, 2013 to April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant A with ready-mixeds and asphalts worth KRW 165,30,000 to the Defendant from July 29, 2013.

3) Defendant A paid to the Plaintiff KRW 95,378,00 as the price for goods. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. Defendant A and C, a joint and several surety, jointly and severally, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 69,952,00 (165,330,000 - 95,378,000) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 4, 2016 to the date of full payment following the last delivery of the complaint to the Defendants as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Defendant A and C did not assert any assertion after the procedure was implemented in a lawsuit against the payment order.

Defendant C presented the judgment of the relevant case (the original District Court Jinwon Branch Decision 2015Kadan3491) and asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in the relevant case.

However, the contents of the related case are about whether the defendant guaranteed the defendant's joint and several obligation to the plaintiff of the name comprehensive construction company. The contents of the related case are different from this case.

B. Defendant B asserts to the effect that, upon Defendant C’s request, Defendant B is in the position of nominal representative director, who is the actual owner, joint and several suretys for Defendant A’s obligation to pay goods to the Plaintiff, and that the current economic situation is difficult, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

The grounds alleged by the Defendant are as follows.