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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed to Nonparty D’s E from March 27, 2017 to May 1, 2018. However, D did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 79,980,000 for the price of ready-mixed.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff urged the payment of the above ready-mixed, and the Defendant, on October 5, 2018, decided to be liable and repaid to the Plaintiff for the payment of the above ready-mixed, but D, the principal obligor, prepared a payment note confirming that the above ready-mixed will be jointly and severally paid with the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff KRW 79,980,000 and damages for delay in accordance with the above payment note.

B. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion and the Defendant promised to pay KRW 79,980,000,000 to the Plaintiff on the condition that the Defendant withdraws the provisional seizure of real estate in the name of the Plaintiff, which was established on the land of 7,655 square meters in the name of the Plaintiff, which is owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant did not have to withdraw the provisional seizure of the said real estate. As such, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the Plaintiff KRW 79,980,00

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment and evidence No. 1, the defendant, on October 5, 2018, in relation to the price of ready-mixed with D against D on the plaintiff on October 5, 2018, the defendant withdrawn the provisional seizure against the plaintiff's real estate in the name of F Co., Ltd. (7,655m2, hereinafter "the plaintiff's land") attached to the land owned by F Co., Ltd., and the defendant decided to pay to the plaintiff KRW 79,980,000 (hereinafter "the payment note of this case") stating the purport. The payment note of this case (hereinafter "the payment note of this case") was prepared and executed, and D was written as a joint and several surety, but according to the payment note of this case, D was deemed to have been written as a joint and several surety, the real estate provisional seizure district court in the name of the plaintiff on the land of this case.