2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) On April 20, 2013, the Defendant changed the name of Nonparty Dongjin Comprehensive Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (Seoul High Military Co., Ltd., Sept. 3, 2015) to the construction of seamen.

hereinafter referred to as "Dongjin Construction"

3) On the ground of “Seoul Northern-gun D and E” land, the construction of a new urban multi-household house and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”) shall be conducted on the ground of “instant land,” and the construction of a new building shall be conducted “this case’s loan.”

(2) From February 10, 2014, Plaintiff A was awarded a subcontract for a painting construction work among the instant construction works in the amount of KRW 310,000,000 for construction cost (excluding value-added tax), and Plaintiff B was awarded a subcontract for a painting construction work in the instant construction work in the amount of KRW 42,00,000 for the construction cost (excluding value-added tax).

3) However, Dojin Construction did not pay 180 million won for each of the above construction costs and 25.2 million won for the plaintiffs A at least twice. The defendant, who is the ordering person of the construction of this case, is obligated to pay the above construction cost directly to the plaintiffs who directly seek payment as subcontractors or subcontractors pursuant to Article 14(1)3 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act or Article 35(2)3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. Furthermore, the defendant, who is the ordering person of the construction of this case, is obligated to pay the unpaid construction cost to the plaintiffs who seek payment in lieu of the construction of Jinjin as the creditor of the construction of this case.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant merely received cash of KRW 150 million from Dojin Construction on condition that he provided the land for the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the case and KRW 150 million from Dojin Construction and seven households from Dojin Construction, etc., and therefore, he did not have ordered Dojin Construction to contract the construction of the case or pay the construction cost to Dojin Construction. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant is liable

2. The key issue of the instant case is the Defendant.