1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On March 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for acquisition and transfer of all the management rights and shares of the Defendants and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) to acquire all the management rights and shares (hereinafter “instant contract”).

Of the terms and conditions of the instant special agreement, Article 14 (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”) provides that “The remaining amount shall be paid after the issuance of a letter of guarantee for advance payment from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance.”

On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not pay any balance within the remainder payment period (within one month after the contract was concluded) at the time of the contract.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Seoul Guarantee Insurance did not issue a guarantee to Defendant C on grounds of disqualification.

Since the guarantee could not be issued due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, the balance could not be paid.

In addition, according to Article 3 of the contract of this case, the Defendants were responsible for all matters regarding the corporation before the remainder payment date.

All matters regarding the above corporations include the issuance of a warranty, and the Defendants did not perform their duties.

Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay a double of the down payment as compensation for damages.

B. First of all, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was not issued a guarantee from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance due to a cause attributable to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the results of the inquiry inquiry inquiry of Seoul Guarantee Insurance, there was no credit inquiry about Defendant C as of March 2014, and there was no data to verify whether at the time the application for issuance of a guarantee letter concerning Defendant C was filed.

Next, the Plaintiff is obligated to issue a guarantee for the performance of the contract in this case.