A. Husband and wife Defendants are engaged in the sales and building business of building materials under the trade name of “D”.

B. Defendant C was awarded, on behalf of the Defendant B, a contract with the E, F, etc. (hereinafter “project owner”) for remodeling of two lots of ground buildings (Hriart) outside North-gu G at port and two lots of land (hereinafter “renovation construction”) at port on April 4, 2012.

C. Defendant B obtained permission for completion of the building on August 10, 2012, and delivered the building to the owner.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff Defendants agreed to the Plaintiff for the construction cost of electrical and lighting works among remodeling works (excluding additional tax). The Plaintiff received KRW 62,00,000, out of the construction cost. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 40,861,70 ( + KRW 37,147,000 + Additional tax + KRW 3,714,700) and the delay damages therefor. 2) Since the Defendants subcontracted the electrical and lighting works to the Plaintiff, Defendant C is not liable to pay the Plaintiff a debt under the subcontract.

Of the construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff, KRW 19,147,00,00 is the price for the lighting fixtures established by the Plaintiff at the request of the owner of the building, and Defendant B does not have the obligation to pay the price to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) Determination 1) The Plaintiff, the subcontractor of the instant construction, during the remodeling project, shall be the electricity and lighting work (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

Although there is no dispute between the parties that subcontracted the construction of this case to the Plaintiff, there is a dispute as to whether the subcontractor is Defendant B and the Defendants.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, testimony of a witness I, and the purport of the whole pleadings, namely, ① the Defendants jointly operated D, and ② the remodeling from the owner of the building.