1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the payment order issued by the Daejeon District Court 2014 tea 6056.

2. This.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

Under the Plaintiff’s joint and several guarantee, the Defendant supplied goods to a new house building company (hereinafter “new house building company”).

B. From January 31, 2013 to December 2, 2013, the said 439,95,820 won was supplied by the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 472,397,574 from January 31, 2013.

C. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the above goods with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014 tea6056, and the payment order against the Plaintiff was finalized to pay the Defendant KRW 46,758,294 and delay damages.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s joint and several liability against the Defendant is limited to the amount of outstanding debt incurred against the Defendant for the new car building business as stated in the following special agreement: 100 froing co-building, which is the main goods and 100 froding and the Defendant for the new car building business.

However, as seen above, the debt guaranteed by the Plaintiff had already been repaid for the new work.

Therefore, there is no joint and several debt of the plaintiff.

B. The scope of the joint and several guarantee agreement entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff is not limited to the goods price ordered and the liabilities arising from continuous transactions with the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff, and all obligations arising from continuous transactions with the defendant are jointly and severally guaranteed.

Therefore, the plaintiff should pay the defendant the price for the goods for which the newborn baby business has not yet been repaid.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the scope of joint and several sureties A’s evidence Nos. 1 and B’s evidence Nos. 4, the new car building business, around January 2013, prepared a written order in the state in which the details of the order signed by the Plaintiff as a joint and several sureties were not entered and submitted to the Defendant. After that, the Defendant’s employees stated “AK-Ring Coping outside,” and “100 copies in the scheduled quantity column.”