2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From September 2, 2015 to November 21, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied beef and other beef to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), but did not receive KRW 4,198,377 out of the price of goods.

B. The defendant is a person who was the representative director B, and the defendant's husband C has actually run B.

C. The Plaintiff’s employee D requested the Defendant’s joint and several sureties for the above goods payment obligation, and received a letter of payment (Evidence A 4) from C, and the Defendant’s resident registration number is indicated in the letter of payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, testimony of witness D by this court, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the defendant, which caused the claim, is jointly and severally guaranteed the price of the goods B, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay 8,487,047 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. In order to recognize that a joint and several guarantee contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant should have expressed his intent to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff's debt to the plaintiff, and the defendant's certificate No. 4 claimed as a disposition document does not contain a statement that the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the goods in question (it cannot be deemed that there was an expression of intent to jointly and severally liable for the payment of the goods in question, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant consented to the entry of the defendant's resident registration number in the certificate No. 4).

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant jointly guaranteed the goods payment obligation of B, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is concluded differently.