1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C on March 2, 2011, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction of a new DD neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On March 3, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) with a policeman C to supply the separated steel bars necessary for the instant construction (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”).

C. The joint and several surety column of the instant goods supply contract includes the name of the defendant, and the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt is not indicated, except where the defendant's seal imprint is affixed, and the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression issued directly is attached.

C does not pay KRW 16.58 million out of the price of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff according to the instant goods supply contract.

(In the absence of dispute, each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. According to the above facts finding as to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant is obligated to pay 16.58 million won for the price of the goods of this case and damages for delay thereof to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances, since the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the price of the goods of the principal debtor C according to the goods supply contract of this case.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of violation of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys (hereinafter “Defendant’s Protection Act”).

A. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the instant guarantee as a kind of collateral guarantee that the Defendant guarantees obligations continuously incurred in the future according to the instant goods supply contract, taking into account the nature of the instant goods supply contract (Evidence A 1-1) and the details of delivery (Evidence A 2-2).

1. The instant contract for the supply of goods specifies 20 tons of the steel supply volume, but the Plaintiff continued to supply C with the steel bars over 16 times, and the steel bars actually supplied are 26 tons of the steel bars.