1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 64,357,710 as well as 15% per annum from June 8, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that manufactures and sells ready-mixeds.

B. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of ready-mixed (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with Company B, and C and the Defendant are joint and several guarantors of the said construction contract.

C. After entering into the said construction contract, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds equivalent to KRW 153,357,710 from October 3, 2013 to January 29, 2014, at the site of the housing construction of electric power sources, which was in progress in the net-land D village, and received reimbursement of KRW 89,00,000 out of the said amount.

The unpaid amount is 64,357,710 won.

[Judgment on the ground of the defense of evidence] The defendant is guilty of the part prepared in the name of the defendant in the joint and several surety column (Evidence A No. 1) of the supply contract for ready-mixeds, and he has signed on the paper brought by C, and there is no fact that he has signed on the above supply contract for ready-mixed.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the signature and the writing recorded in the column is the defendant's name, resident registration number, address, telephone number, and the relationship with the orderer among the joint and several surety of the above ready-mixed supply contract.

In addition, it is identical to the Defendant’s signature of the mutual performance agreement (Evidence A4) that the Defendant entered in the Plaintiff, and the above ready-mixed supply contract is added to the joint and several sureties, but the latter is also written by the joint and several sureties.

According to the above circumstances and the purport of the whole pleadings, since the signature of No. 1 is recognized as the defendant's signature, it is difficult to presume the authenticity of the entire evidence No. 1, and the testimony and evidence No. 1 through No. 5 of the witness C is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff et al. forged the above document, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's arguments against the evidence cannot be accepted.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, witness E's testimony, and the whole pleadings.