1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The purport of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following determination as stated in paragraph (3). Therefore, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co., Ltd. Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. to use the construction cost and incurred considerable damages to the Plaintiff (i.e., damages equivalent to the delayed payment amount of KRW 29,154,700,630, registered as a disqualified company under a negotiated contract of KRW 46,170,630, 593,160) of the first instance court’s decision No. 412 of the first instance court’s first instance court’s judgment, “30,000,000,” and even after the last 4th of the first instance court’s judgment of the first instance court’s judgment, the Plaintiff added “(No evidence A No. 14,1500).

3. Even if the Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A corporation of the first instance trial or the Defendant used the down payment received from the Plaintiff for another purpose as alleged by the Plaintiff, in light of the content of each letter of guarantee of down payment and joint payment (Evidence A5), each of the above forms of contracts is deemed to have been prepared to guarantee the risk of double payment, etc. to be borne by the Plaintiff, a primary contractor, by claiming the cost of equipment, wages, etc., directly from the Plaintiff, which was used for another purpose. The damages claimed by the Plaintiff are irrelevant to the scope of the Defendant’s liability under the said letter

Therefore, (the plaintiff should have taken the form of joint and several guarantee for the defendant's obligation under the contract in order to hold the defendant liable for the damage of the plaintiff's assertion against the defendant).