1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2016, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for the construction of a new factory E plant in the Gyeongbuk-gun D (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. At C’s request, the Defendant supplied ready-mixed at the construction site of this case.

C. The Defendant filed an application with C and the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking payment of the price of ready-mixed and damages for delay on the ground that the Defendant supplied ready-mixeds at the construction site of this case under the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties-gun Court 2017 tea125, and the Defendant did not receive KRW 25,597,440.

The above payment order was served on the plaintiff and C, which became final and conclusive.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s father F, who was at the construction site of this case, can supply ready-mixed in the column of joint and several sureties in which the owner entered the order of ready-mixed in the form of the owner, and F arbitrarily stated the Plaintiff’s name and signed in the column of joint and several sureties in the order of ready-mixed without obtaining consent from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the joint and several guarantee of the plaintiff's name on the above ready-mixed price is formal or not so.

Even if it is an unauthorized representative, it is not effective against the plaintiff, and it should be denied compulsory execution based on the above payment order.

B. The written evidence No. 3 alone is that it is difficult to recognize that a joint and several surety under the Plaintiff’s name for the above ready-mixed price is formal or that F is a joint and several surety under the Plaintiff’s name without the Plaintiff’s consent, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without examining any further.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.