205, 90 Construction Price, etc.

1. Bonds*******************)

2.** (********************)*)

The plaintiffs' Address Gangwon* group** group***** Ri***

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

1. Stock Company* Construction

Goyang City**Gu** Dong*

Goyang-si*Gu** Dong***--*

Park* Representative Director*

2.** (********************)*)

Goyang-si**Gu* Dong*****-*

[Defendant-Appellant]

October 5, 2007

November 2, 2007

1. The defendant corporation** Construction pays to the plaintiff ** the amount of KRW 75 million and the amount of 6% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The amount of 75 million won per annum from November 24, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Plaintiffs 1 * :

(a) Defendant gambling* The amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from January 24, 2006 to the date of full payment, as well as 140 million won per annum;

B. Defendant Lb.** Construction Co., Ltd.: the amount calculated by the ratio of 6% per annum from January 24, 2006 to November 2, 2007, and 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment, jointly and severally with Defendant LbA*

(D) each payment.

3. We dismiss the remainder of plaintiffs*** the rest of plaintiffs** the rest of plaintiffs** the defendant corporation** the rest of the office of construction.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff *** and the defendant **) out of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff ** and the construction 2 is five-minutes, the remainder is part of the construction ***, the plaintiff *, the plaintiff **, the part arising between the plaintiff * and the defendant * is part of the cost of lawsuit **, the plaintiff **, the plaintiff ** and the defendant *** the case * the part arising between the plaintiff * and the case * each is borne by the plaintiff **** and the remainder.

5. The above paragraphs 1 and 2 can be provisionally executed.

1. Plaintiff 1. Plaintiff 1*, Defendant Park *, Defendant Park * KRW 140,000, Defendant corporation** Construction (hereinafter “Defendant Association”)

Gg only means Defendant Park** The said money jointly and severally with the said money to KRW 120 million and each of the said money.

shall be calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.

2. Payment of money to the Plaintiff ** 179,200,000 won and interest thereon

shall pay 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of a copy of a complaint to the day of full payment.

[Judgment]

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each of the following facts is recognized by Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2-4 (the defendant's 2-2, 4 of Gap evidence 2-2, and 2-4, and there is no reason to view as follows: Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 3, 6, 7, 12, and Gap evidence 5-6, 8, 9-9, part of Gap evidence 4-9, 13 (excluding the part excluded from each other) and the body of the oral argument, against this, and there is no reason to believe that some of Gap evidence 4-9, 13, and 5-11, and 15-2 of Gap evidence 2-2, and 4 were forged, and there is no reason to view otherwise between the plaintiff's company and the defendant's 1-2, 201.

******-* Mambio 2-dong, commercial building 2-dong, ** Mabol among the new construction works

A contract for construction works, the construction cost of which is KRW 10,000,000,000 for aluminium and miscellaneous construction works;

(hereinafter referred to as "the construction contract of this case") and progress the construction work at the end of November 2002.

The work was completed.

B. On the other hand, defendant Park Jong-, the representative director of the defendant company, is the representative director of the defendant company* The construction site of the above new construction site of this case

The head of the site office of the plaintiff * through the plaintiff **, 1 May 14, 2002, 1.

The due date shall be set on June 13, 2002, and KRW 40 million, and ② the due date shall be set on May 24, 2002.

13.A fixed amount of KRW 50 million; ③ September 3, 2002, without fixing the due date, KRW 30 million,000,000 each;

The defendant corporation borrowed the above 30 million won borrowed on September 3, 2002

(hereinafter referred to as the "loan on September 3, 2002") has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation. (c) In addition, Defendant Park** was introduced through Plaintiff 1** from October 2002 to 2,000

W. The Defendant L.W. L. L.W. L. L.W.* as the Defendant did not repay the above loan, the Plaintiff 1* this Defendant

Park* with the consent of the Council* has repaid the above borrowed money to** in lieu of the borrowed money.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the claim for construction price

(1) Determination of the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the defendant company is obligated to pay the construction cost of KRW 110 million to the plaintiff * (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" in this paragraph) without special circumstances.

As to this, the Plaintiff initially and verbally agreed to settle the construction cost as KRW 192 million when entering into the instant construction contract, but the Defendants failed to pay the construction cost to various sub-contractors including the Plaintiff, after completing the construction work, the Plaintiff was at the latest from April 2003 to May 5, 2003 to secure claims. During that process, the Plaintiff was subject to a construction contract agreement (Evidence A A). In addition, the Plaintiff’s additional construction cost and sports cost incurred at the construction site of this case 110 million won * * * * * * * * 192 million - the total construction cost added to the unpaid construction cost at the construction site of this case * 192 million 192 million , and the contract price is stated as KRW 192 million ,2 million 190 million , but it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction cost to the Plaintiff is KRW 192 million 4,500 -

(2) Determination as to the defense of performance

Since the defendant company already paid KRW 72 million among the construction cost under the construction contract of this case, the defendant company paid KRW 62 million to the plaintiff as the construction cost, taking account of the whole purport of Gap evidence 4-6, 10-10, Gap evidence 4-5, and part of Gap evidence 9-9, and the whole purport of the changes, the defendant company paid the plaintiff the amount of KRW 72 million in total over several times from May 2002 to July of the same year. The defendant company paid part of the above money to Kim Tae-dong, who performed the construction work of this case at the construction site of this case in lieu of the free construction cost, and received KRW 35 million as the plaintiff's own construction cost. Accordingly, the defendant company's defense of this part cannot be trusted and there is no other counter-proof as to the above KRW 35 million.

(3) Sub-decisions

Thus, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 75 million (= KRW 110 million - KRW 35 million) and damages for delay.

B. Determination on the claim for loans, etc.

(1) Defendant Park * A claim against the defendant

According to the above facts, defendant Park Jong-chul* is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 120 million ( = 40 million + KRW 50 million + KRW 30 million) and the amount of KRW 140 million under the subrogation for the Corporation* The defendants are obligated to pay the amount of KRW 140 million and delay damages for the Corporation, including the amount of KRW 50 million borrowed on May 24, 200, KRW 2000, KRW 3000,000,000 and KRW 400,000,000,000 as the result of the loan contract for the Corporation * 300,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000 *,0000,000,000,000 won and KRW 40,000,000,00,000.

(2) Claim against the Defendant Company

According to the facts found above, the defendant company is jointly and severally obligated to pay the plaintiff Y* the balance of the loan 30 million won from September 3, 2002 to the plaintiff Y***, the defendant company, the defendant Y** there is no joint and several liability for the above loan *, but as recognized by the statement in the evidence No. 2-4 and No. 4-6, it is reasonable to accept the above loan * the defendant Y* the entrusted * in preparing a cash custody certificate while borrowing KRW 30 million from the plaintiff ** in preparing a cash custody certificate with the plaintiff Y** the official seal of the representative director of the defendant company after affixing the name of the ** and affixed a clear statement with the "No. 30 million Won Construction*" on September 3, 2002. Since the defendant company, the defendant company, the defendant Y** has no joint and several liability for the above loan *, the defendant company's loan 2-4, the defendant company's loan 1964.

On the other hand, the plaintiff size** The defendant Park Ha,* A, May 14, 2002, and May 24, 2002, respectively, borrowed KRW 40 million and KRW 50 million from May 24, 2002, and affixed the official seal of the representative director of the defendant company and the name seal of the defendant company on the promissory notes (Articles 2 and 3) prepared and delivered by the defendant company (Articles 2-2 and 3). Thus, the defendant company argued that the defendant company jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the above loans*

In light of the principle, a person who makes an endorsement on a promissory note issued by another person or provides a guarantee for a bill shall be liable only for the obligation in principle. Only when it is possible to deem that the obligee himself/herself guaranteed the obligation which was the cause of the issuance of the promissory note, the obligor who borrowed money shall be liable for the guarantee of the obligation. Thus, even in cases where the obligor who borrowed money guaranteed the promissory note issued and issued by the obligee for the guarantee of the obligation in borrowed money, barring any special circumstance, it is merely merely intended to give credit by the assumption of the obligation in the promissorysory note, and it cannot be viewed otherwise even if the obligor was aware that the promissory note was issued and exchanged for the guarantee of the obligation in the loan, and it cannot be viewed that there is no special ground to prove that the Defendant Company received the guarantee against the obligation in this case*, 26, June 26, 1998.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff *** the amount of KRW 75 million and delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 24, 2006 to November 2, 2007, which is the day following the delivery date of the main complaint of this case (in this case, it is reasonable for the defendant company to resist the existence and scope of such performance) and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of the full payment, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of the full payment. ② The plaintiff Park **, the defendant Park * the amount of KRW 140 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 24, 2006 to the day after the delivery date of the main complaint of this case* the remainder of the plaintiffs' claims for delay damages calculated at the rate of 16% per annum from January 24, 2006 to the day of full payment.

Exemplary (Presiding Judge)

Freeboard of gambling

Hephoho Lake