1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding Defendant B is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

2. Defendant C-.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff concluded a contract with Defendant C for the electricity, telecommunication, and fire fighting construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 25 million with respect to Down-gu Busan, Busan; and (b) the Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the construction cost.

② Defendant C entered into a contract with Defendant B to newly construct the said D loan amounting to KRW 450 million, and Defendant C subcontracted the instant construction work to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant B, the subcontractor, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost directly in accordance with Article 14 (Direct Payment of Subcontract Price) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the payment of the construction cost of KRW 17 million and the delay damages therefor.

B. We examine the judgment on the claim for joint and several sureties, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the stamp image next to the Defendant B’s name is based on the Defendant B’s seal, but in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 (Appeal) and 5 (Notice of Reasons for Non-prosecution) in the above contract, the Plaintiff’s seal may be acknowledged as being affixed to the Defendant’s name next to the Defendant B’s above contract. Thus, it is insufficient to deem that the sealing act was carried out by the legitimate title delegated by the Defendant B, and unless there is any evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, the evidence No. 2 cannot be used as evidence in relation to the fact of joint and several sureties by the Defendant B.

In addition, the above contract is merely the fact that the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case with the defendant C and entered the defendant B as the ordering person, and otherwise there is no indication related to the defendant B's guarantee, the defendant B guaranteed the obligation to pay the construction price of the defendant C.