1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 161,365,00 won and 6% per annum from October 17, 2018 to November 15, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is a policyholder who entered into a guarantee insurance contract with the Plaintiff, and Defendant D, E, and F are punished.

B. The Defendant Company concluded the “G construction contract” (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”).

C. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant Company entered into a guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff on January 22, 2016, with the content that, in order to guarantee defects in the structure supplied under the instant construction contract, the Defendant Company, the Intervenor, the Intervenor’s Intervenor, the insurance coverage amounting to 382,250,000 won, and the insurance period from January 22, 2016 to October 31, 2017 (649 days), and Defendant D, E, and F entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement with the Defendant Company to guarantee obligations owed by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant guarantee insurance contract.

In the instant guarantee insurance contract, when the Plaintiff paid the insurance money, the Defendant Company and the joint guarantor shall immediately reimburse the insurance money, and if delayed, the Defendant Company and the joint guarantor agreed to compensate by adding the damages for delay calculated by applying the overdue interest rate set by the Plaintiff within the maximum of the overdue interest rate set by the Plaintiff among the overdue interest rates of financial institutions under the Banking Act from the date following the date of payment of the insurance money to the date of full payment. The overdue interest rate set by the Plaintiff in relation to the above delayed interest rate is 6% per annum from the date following the date of payment of the insurance money to the 30th

E. However, on October 10, 2017, the supplementary intervenor asserted that there was a defect in the part of the Defendant Company’s construction work, and the supplementary intervenor with the Defendant Company and the supplementary intervenor suffered from the defect in the part of the Defendant Company.