1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,300,000 and its amount shall be 15% per annum from February 23, 2019 to May 31, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 9, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). The name of the construction: The F period for the construction of the E neighborhood living facilities in Cheongdo: From August 13, 2018 to September 13, 2018: the contract amount: the amount of KRW 57,300,000: the payment of KRW 30,000 within 7 days after the conclusion of the contract - the payment of KRW 27,30,000 within 10 days after the conclusion of the contract.

B. Defendant and G guaranteed each of the obligation to pay D construction price under the instant contract.

C. The Plaintiff completed the construction under the instant contract, but D paid only 20,000,000 of the construction cost on August 14, 2018, and did not pay the remainder of the construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff as the surety the remaining construction cost of KRW 37,300,000 (= KRW 57,300,000 - KRW 20,000) under the instant contract, and to pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the following day to May 31, 2019, promulgated on May 21, 2019 and enforced on June 1, 2019 pursuant to the provisions of the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act before and after the amendment.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant's financial ability is sufficient, the plaintiff should be paid the construction price from D.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and rather, according to the evidence No. 6, D can only be recognized as a company that has already closed its business.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

Although the defendant asserts that D has paid the construction cost in full, it is in accordance with the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.