A. 1) On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff is only Defendant A Co., Ltd. (former trade name: D Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

) The instant construction works are the rooftops of buildings and the floor repair works of the first floor in Gangnam-gun E (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction works”).

(B) Defendant B and C guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the instant construction cost, setting the construction cost as 159,357,000 won, from July 12, 2016 to July 31, 2016, and on August 25, 2016.

3) On July 30, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2-1, 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 159,357,000 of the instant construction work and the damages for delay after the due date for the payment of the agreed construction cost, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Determination of the defect repair assertion

A. According to the result of the appraisal commission of this court, the construction of this case can be acknowledged as requiring 3,173,346 won in the cost of repairing the above defects.

B. Therefore, the construction cost to be paid by the Defendants is 156,183,654 won (=159,357,000 won-3,173,346) and damages for delay calculated by deducting the repair cost from the construction cost under the contract.

3. Defendant B and C, prior to filing a claim against the guarantor, must file a claim against the Defendant Company, which is the primary debtor, prior to the filing of the claim against the guarantor. However, in order for the guarantor to exercise the above defense against the creditor, the guarantor must prove that the primary debtor has the ability to pay the debt and its execution is easy. Thus, the above defense has no merit.

4. Conclusion.