1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,00,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 6% per annum from November 1, 2012 to October 20, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff has completed business registration in the name of wife C in Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and operates a mutually named construction business entity, “E,” and “H” operates a fertilizer production business with the trade name of “H” in Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, G (hereinafter “H”).

B. On February 3, 2012, F contracted the Plaintiff with H’s construction cost of KRW 76 million. However, even after the completion of the construction, F did not pay the Plaintiff the construction cost (hereinafter “instant construction cost”).

C. On September 1, 2012, F agreed to pay KRW 20 million among the instant construction price between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff until September 6, 2012, and the remainder of KRW 56 million until October 31, 2012, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed F’s debt to the Plaintiff on the same day.

(hereinafter the above joint and several sureties contract is referred to as the "joint and several sureties contract of this case").

F and the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on September 6, 2012, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 56 million by October 31, 2012, and thereafter paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff additionally.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry into evidence of subparagraphs A through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1) of the same Article, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 26 million and damages for delay after November 1, 2012, which is the day after the due date for payment, pursuant to the joint and several guarantee contract of this case. (2) The Plaintiff filed against the Defendant for damages for delay on October 31, 2013, which is the due date for payment, but the damages for delay on the ground of delay in the performance of the monetary obligation occurs from the following day after the due date for payment. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant invested KRW 100 million in F after H’s construction of the open storage site. However, the Defendant would not operate H unless the Plaintiff pays the instant construction cost.