A. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) under which the Plaintiff would supply ready-mixed (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Defendant B in relation to the construction of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building to be newly constructed, and Defendant C, the owner of the building of the building, as the owner of the building of the building, guaranteed the obligation to pay ready-mixed to the Plaintiff.

B. From October 3, 2015 to October 1, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied 215,882,480 won (including value-added tax) to Defendant B.

[Reasons for Recognition]: Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Evidence No. 3-1 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is the principal debtor, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 215,882,480 won as joint and several sureties and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the duplicate of the complaint of this case was delivered to the Defendants to the day of complete payment, as claimed by the Plaintiff.

B. Meanwhile, Defendant C, the representative of Defendant B, had the seal impression of Defendant C, the owner of the building, and had the seal impression assigned to E, and Defendant C, without Defendant C’s permission, claimed that E used the payment obligation of ready-mixed in the name of Defendant C for the joint and several surety without Defendant C’s permission.

However, in addition to the written evidence No. 4, at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, Defendant B’s representative E knew at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract that the joint and several liability of Defendant C, the owner of the building, is necessary for the purchase of ready-mixed, and the Defendant C permits the joint and several liability of Defendant B to the joint and several liability for the payment of the purchase price of ready-mixed, and it is recognized that the delegation of the contract to E

Therefore, Defendant C’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is with merit.