1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 80,000,000 and Defendant C with respect thereto from January 17, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs surveying business, etc. under the trade name of D.

B. The Defendant Social Welfare Foundation B (formerly named social welfare foundation E; hereinafter “Defendant B”) decided to newly build the welfare facilities for the aged located in the ASEAN City in around 2012, and contracted the said new construction work to G.

Defendant C was appointed as the Secretary General of Defendant B, and on December 10, 201, as the Defendant B’s president’s agent until the completion of the Medical Care Work.

C. The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for civil engineering design services related to the said new construction in the amount of KRW 80 million (excluding value-added tax).

On November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the above services. D.

On July 21, 2014, Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff the remainder of the service costs of KRW 80,000,000 to December 31, 2016, and Defendant C prepared a payment note stating that the said obligation is jointly and severally guaranteed (hereinafter “instant payment note”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number for a case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B is the principal debtor in accordance with the letter of payment in this case. Defendant C is jointly and severally a joint and several surety, and Defendant C is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from January 17, 2017 to the date of full payment as requested by the Plaintiff, on the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, as requested by the Plaintiff, as a joint and several surety, and Defendant C is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from

B. As to Defendant B’s defense dispute, Defendant B did not undergo a resolution of the board of directors on the instant payment rejection, and the Plaintiff was aware of the said fact at the time. Accordingly, the instant payment rejection is null and void. 2) The representative director of the corporation should undergo a resolution of the board of directors.