1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 45,756,300 and Defendant A Co., Ltd. from October 7, 2016.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant A Co., Ltd. may recognize the fact that around July 31, 2014, the Defendant Co., Ltd. supplied the Plaintiff with seven monitoring units equivalent to KRW 60,756,300 and repaid KRW 15,00,000 out of the above payments, and Defendant B, as the representative director of Defendant A, jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Co., Ltd’s obligation to pay the above goods on April 30, 2015.

According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 45,756,300 (=60,756,300-15,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 7, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the due date.

As to this, Defendant B asserted to the effect that the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da1616 decided August 25, 2014 and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on September 12, 2014, Defendant B is not liable for the above commodity price obligation.

B. Defendant B was granted immunity as above.

In light of the above facts, Defendant B’s joint and several surety on April 30, 2015, which was after the decision to grant the above immunity became final and conclusive, and thus, Defendant B’s liability is not exempted upon the above decision to grant the immunity.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.