1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant limited liability company B is dismissed.

2. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff 34.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From August 2015, Defendant C D’s association (hereinafter “Defendant church”) and D concluded a contract for the construction of a church on a parcel of land, E, and one other (hereinafter “instant construction”). D performed the instant construction from August 29, 2015.

On September 14, 2015, the Defendant church and D drafted a contract agreement with the construction cost of KRW 600 million and the construction period from September 14, 2015 to February 15, 2016.

B. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff received from D, the contractor-based limited liability company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), the Defendant church, a joint and several surety, (hereinafter “instant contract”). At D’s request, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds worth KRW 39,879,840, total sum from September 8, 2015 to March 11, 2016 at the instant construction site.

The contractor of the contract of this case bears the seal of the defendant company after the name of the defendant company, and the seal of the defendant church and the seal of the representative of the defendant church are affixed after the name of the defendant church in the joint and several sureties's column.

C. As to the supply of ready-mixed, the Plaintiff issued each electronic tax invoice of KRW 1,487,640 as of September 30, 2015, KRW 12,614,580 as of October 31, 2015, KRW 12,797,40 as of December 31, 2015, KRW 2,925,120 as of February 29, 2016, KRW 10,05,10 as of March 31, 2016, respectively, to the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company approved all of the above tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff was not paid 34,879,840 won out of the above ready-mixed price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 [this is presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document, since the authenticity of the seal imprint is recognized between the plaintiff and the defendant company based on the witness D's testimony and appraiser G's appraisal result, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed.

The defendant company is to the effect that D's seal impressions in the name of the defendant company was displayed by stealing the defendant company's seals.