2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 26, 2016, the Defendant contracted the construction of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu ground neighborhood living facilities A to the Ha Young-gu Construction, and the Ha Young-young Construction subcontracted the steel frame construction among the said new construction works to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract.” The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to guarantee the payment of the construction price, in which the monthly progress payment was not made from the construction at the time, and the Defendant paid the said subcontract price by sealing the Defendant’s name plate on the instant subcontract.

The Plaintiff completed the subcontracted project in this case by January 2017, and the construction cost unpaid due to the comprehensive construction in Yong-young is KRW 97,600,000.

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff KRW 97,600,000 for the subcontract price of this case, which is not paid to the plaintiff, and the delay damages therefor.

B. The plaintiff did not request the defendant to guarantee the subcontract price of this case or directly pay the subcontract price of this case, and there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

On the other hand, after the conclusion of the instant subcontract, the Defendant merely affixed the Defendant’s name seal on the instant subcontract within the meaning of the subcontract management and the confirmation of the ordering person after hearing the phrase that the Plaintiff requires the Defendant’s name seal from the construction re-permanent construction.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, the fact that the name and seal of the defendant company were affixed at the end of the subcontract of this case can be acknowledged, but in light of the fact that the defendant does not have any indication in the above subcontract of this case that the defendant guaranteed the above subcontract price, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the defendant guaranteed the subcontract price of this case or guaranteed the above subcontract price of this case, and there

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.