1. The Defendant’s KRW 67,624,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 15% per annum from April 16, 2019 to May 30, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around 2017, the Defendant acquired ownership of 5,023 square meters prior to Dacheon-si, and around 2018, ordered E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) to undertake a new construction work on the said land.

B. On June 16, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E and the Plaintiff on the supply of ready-mixed at the site of the foregoing M&D construction work performed by E.

(hereinafter the above contract is called “instant contract” and the contract is called “instant contract”). C.

In the joint and several guarantee column for the client (E) of the instant contract, the name plates and seal imprint seals of “C”, the name of the Defendant prior to the Defendant’s change, are affixed.

The above seal is only F, and F is a person who was the defendant's auditor until March 31, 2018.

The price for ready-mixed supplied by the Plaintiff to E under the instant contract is KRW 67,624,00.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that "F, as the defendant's auditor, obtained the power of representation from the defendant and jointly and severally guaranteed the contract of this case. Even if F did not obtain the power of representation as to the joint and several guarantee of the contract of this case from the defendant, F had the basic power of representation related to the defendant's business implementation, and the plaintiff had reasonable grounds to believe that F had the power of representation as to the joint and several guarantee of the contract of this case. Therefore, the defendant asserts to the effect that "the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the unpaid ready-mixed price as the joint and several guarantee of the contract of this case, as well as the delayed payment."

As to this, the Defendant did not have granted the right of representation on the joint and several guarantee of the contract of this case by the Defendant, and the Defendant did not have granted the said right.

1.(c)

It argues to the effect that even if a name tag and a seal imprint are affixed as described in the paragraph, the effect shall not extend to the defendant.

3. The evidence mentioned above, as well as evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 9, respectively.