A. The following facts are recognized as either a dispute between the parties, or as a whole taking account of the evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff Company B (the trade name before the change: C; hereinafter “B”).

(B) A purchase agreement with the Plaintiff was concluded, and the Defendant (the representative director of B) jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the Plaintiff under the said agreement. (2) The Plaintiff supplied B with all equipment equivalent to KRW 211,119,079 (including value-added tax) from July 27, 2015 to December 24, 2015 in accordance with the agreement set forth in the preceding paragraph.

3) B paid the Plaintiff KRW 140,00,000 out of the total amount of the goods stated in the preceding paragraph until April 2016. (B) According to the above facts, the Defendant, as a joint guarantor of B, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 71,119,079 (211,119,079 - 140,000,000) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as claimed by the Plaintiff on March 4, 2016 (from the day following the delivery of the instant payment order to the day of full payment).

2. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion argues that since the former equipment supplied by the plaintiff was used at the construction site that was constructed by the Filijin Co., Ltd., the plaintiff could not claim the price for the goods against B

However, the facts that the plaintiff and the other party involved in the transaction are B are recognized as above, so the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.