1. The Plaintiff’s contract bond based on the goods contract concluded on December 26, 2014 and the goods change contract concluded on January 15, 2015 against the Defendant.

Basic Facts

A. On November 14, 2014, the Defendant offered a public contest for art works to be installed in the Defendant’s B, and on December 11, 2014, the Defendant decided on the work submitted by the Plaintiff as the winning.

B. On December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the production and installation of art works between the Defendant and the Plaintiff to supply the art works to the Defendant by July 26, 2015, and to receive KRW 164,00,000,000. On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to change the delivery period between the Defendant and the Defendant to KRW 165,00,000 on September 26, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant contract") c in total before and after the amendment.

On December 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a performance guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant, the insurance amount of KRW 24,600,000 with respect to the instant contract, and submitted the relevant guarantee insurance certificate to the Defendant.

In the instant contract, when the delivery deadline and the price were modified as described in the instant clause, on January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a performance guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., which provides for KRW 24,750,000 with respect to the instant contract as the insured and the insurance amount of KRW 24,750,00, and submitted the relevant guarantee insurance certificate to the Defendant.

The Gangwon-do Deliberation Committee on Building Art Works (hereinafter referred to as the "Deliberation Committee of this case", and the deliberation by the Deliberation Committee of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Deliberation Committee of this case") has deliberated on the plaintiff's art works on March 11, 2015 and June 18, 2015 on two occasions, and concluded two times as "incompetence."

Accordingly, on June 22, 2015, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit to the Plaintiff a written consent for termination stipulated as “two times in the local government’s own deliberation in accordance with the guidelines for public offering for the production of art works,” and the Plaintiff prepared and submitted the above written consent for termination to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request.

E. The defendant has objection against Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.