A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that manufactures and engages in the wholesale business, etc. of ready-mixed, and Defendant A is the owner of multi-household housing on the land of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

B. On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of ready-mixed with the non-party Mack Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”) on the said new multi-household construction, and the order sheet (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “instant order sheet”) written by the Defendants as joint and several sureties.

C. From December 19, 2015 to March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed at the relevant new construction site of multi-household housing, and the present amount of goods unpaid remains 36,768,820 won.

【Defendant A: Judgment by deeming confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act): Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”): The fact that there is no dispute, entries in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the claim against Defendant A, Defendant A, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of 36,768,820 won for the unpaid goods, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from March 2, 2016 to June 10, 2016, the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, from March 2, 2016 to June 10, 2016, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day

3. The order of this case concerning the claim against Defendant B was submitted by the Plaintiff as a disposition document regarding the conclusion of joint and several surety contract of this case between Defendant B and Defendant B.

Since Defendant B’s assertion that the part of Defendant B’s joint and several sureties’s joint and several sureties in the instant order was forged, it can be acknowledged that there is a difference between Defendant B’s seal affixed to the instant order and the Defendant’s seal impression, and otherwise, the instant order.