A. On June 8, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant Company for design services for the E Corporation (hereinafter “instant Corporation”) that is created in Gyeong-gun D (hereinafter “instant Corporation”) from Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) for KRW 450 million (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

B. After completing the work under the instant service contract, the Plaintiff received KRW 260 million out of the agreed service cost of KRW 450 million from the Defendant Company.

C. After that, on March 19, 2015, the Defendant Company prepared to the Plaintiff a letter of payment to the effect that the remaining service payment amount of KRW 190 million would be paid to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”). In this case, the Defendant C signed the said letter of payment as a guarantor, thereby guaranteeing the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the remaining service payment amount to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, witness F's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to the claim against the defendant company and the defendant C on the facts of the above defendants' acceptance of the remaining payment obligation, the defendant company and the defendant C jointly (the plaintiff are jointly and severally liable to the above defendants, but there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant company's obligation. Thus, the defendant C, as a ordinary guarantor, is obligated to pay the service price to the plaintiff jointly with the defendant company.

3) The Plaintiff’s remaining service payment of KRW 190 million (the agreed service payment of KRW 450 million - the service payment of KRW 260 million - the service payment of KRW 260 million; hereinafter “instant balance”).

) On the day following the service of a copy of the complaint in this case (the defendant company is the company, October 6, 2016, and the defendant C is the date of this decision, which is recognized as reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the above defendants' obligations from May 27, 2016.