1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 68,604,480 and KRW 68,251,07 out of the total amount of KRW 68,257 from April 1, 2014 to July 1, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract on March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

2) As to the Defendant Company’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”)

(B) The following B. In order to guarantee the obligation to return advance payment under the construction contract as described in the foregoing sub-paragraph (b), the policyholder concluded a performance guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant Company, the Intervenor’s Intervenor, the amount of insurance coverage of KRW 117,37,590, and the insurance period from February 29, 2012 to September 17, 2012 (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”).

(2) Defendant B and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed all obligations owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant Company under the instant guarantee insurance contract.

3) At the time of the conclusion of the instant guarantee insurance contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company agreed to pay the Plaintiff’s insurance proceeds to the Intervenor as the Defendant Company did not perform an agreement with the Intervenor, with respect to the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff, plus damages for delay pursuant to the interest rate applied by the Plaintiff within the maximum overdue interest rate from the day following the date of the insurance payment to the financial institution under the Banking Act. (B) On February 21, 2012, the Defendant Company entered into a contract for the instant construction contract with the Intervenor on July 19, 2012 (hereinafter “instant construction”) by setting the construction period as KRW 384,087,00 of the construction amount and the construction amount as KRW 113,00,000 as the advance payment for the construction payment on March 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant advance payment”).

2) However, as the Defendant Company failed to comply with the initial time limit for completion, the Intervenor urged the Defendant Company to implement the work and requested the Defendant Company to establish a fair and binding measure, but there was no particular progress, but to completely suspend the work on October 26, 2012. 3) As such, the Intervenor’s auxiliary intervenor is more likely to be the Defendant Company on October 26, 2012.