A. The Plaintiff is a Co., Ltd. C (hereinafter “C”) on December 13, 2018.

From this point of view, the “D Association Screening Work” has been awarded a subcontract for the construction cost of KRW 230 million (value-added tax).

B. The Plaintiff requested C to pay the construction cost as it is impossible to believe C’s financial ability, and it is called “E” as the principal contractor of the above Corporation.

(C) The Plaintiff prepared a joint and several surety that the Defendant, the representative director of C, and F, the related parties, jointly and severally liable for the said construction cost. C) The Plaintiff was paid only KRW 100 million out of the said construction cost (including value-added tax), although the subcontracted construction was completed, only KRW 100 million of the said construction cost (including value-added tax).

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with F, etc. to pay the Plaintiff the amount of construction cost of KRW 143 million (including value-added tax of KRW 250,00,000), which is payable to the Plaintiff (including value-added tax of KRW 100,000), and to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from May 21, 2019, promulgated on May 21, 2019 and enforced on June 1, 2019 pursuant to the provisions before and after the amendment of the "Provisions on the statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the above Act". < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23839, May 25, 2019 to May 31, 2019>

B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that E should be paid. However, as long as the defendant has jointly and severally guaranteed, he/she shall bear the joint and several liability as E.

The Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

In addition, even if the defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation, there is no evidence to prove that there was a decision to commence such rehabilitation, and thus, the lawsuit in this case cannot be deemed unlawful.

After the commencement decision of individual rehabilitation against the defendant, the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the above individual rehabilitation procedure.