1. The Plaintiff, the Sungwon Co., Ltd., and the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the Defendant Company.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 2, 2014, the Defendant Sungwon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Sungwon”) entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on September 2, 2014 under which 8,204 of the contract amount of KRW 172,476,294 of the contract amount, as well as KRW 172,476,294 of the contract amount, and KRW 17,247,629 of the contract amount (hereinafter “instant contract”). At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant Sungwon paid the guaranteed amount to the Plaintiff by submitting the electronic guarantee bond issued by the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) with KRW 17,247,629 of the contract amount.

B. The letter of request for the purchase of walled special charging to be incorporated into the contract of this case requires “the synthetic leather at least 10,000 synthetic leathers”, and the letter of request for the purchase of walled special power towing personnel required “Innnlon 66 degrees and five degrees of digital color” in the letter of request for purchase of walled special power towing personnel.

C. However, it was determined that the synthetic leather of the walled special use room, which the Defendant Sungwon submitted to the Plaintiff, failed to meet the requirements of “the flood control map (frequency frequency) at least 10,000 times” that was requested by the FITI Examination Institute for the purchase request for the walled special use as a result of the performance test conducted five times by the FITI Examination Institute.

In addition, Defendant Sungwon failed to secure the “Bronn 66 degrees and the original body of digital 5 degrees” as required by the letter of request for purchase of a protective wall for special power towing personnel, and eventually, Defendant Sungwon failed to supply the wall that was used for special power and the protective wall that was used for special power towing personnel by December 19, 2014, which is the date of payment.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant Sungwon agreed to maintain the contract of this case under the condition that they pay the contract deposit additionally, and accordingly, the defendant Sungwon was the defendant.