1. The payment order for the Defendant’s claim for construction cost as Busan District Court Branch Decision 2017 tea 1965 against the Plaintiff is issued.

1. On August 23, 2017, the Defendant received a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “A, the Plaintiff, and D shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant 56,623,050 won and 15% interest per annum from the next day of the delivery of the payment order to the full payment date,” while the Defendant supplied goods to C and gave the LED installation works to C, and thus, the Defendant did not receive the payment from C, a joint representative director, and the Plaintiff and D, which had been issued a payment order under the court No. 2017 tea1965, Aug. 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 428-2(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A guarantee shall take effect when the intent thereof must be indicated in writing with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor.”

However, in the instant case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to guarantee the obligation to pay the construction price to C by a document with his/her name and seal or signature, and therefore, it is difficult to regard the Plaintiff as the guarantor of C.

Therefore, it is reasonable to exclude the enforcement force of the instant payment order under the premise that the Plaintiff is a guarantor of C Co., Ltd., and to deny compulsory execution based thereon.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.