A. 3,657,870 Won and its corresponding:

B. As regards Plaintiff B, KRW 36,408 and this, C.

A. On December 1, 2017 and December 5, 2017, according to the judgment of the first instance court in the lawsuit claiming management expenses against the plaintiffs, the Suwon District Court 2014Gahap61343, which filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs paid provisional payment to the defendant as stated in the following table. The facts that the plaintiffs' obligations against the defendant were recognized only as the amount stated in the judgment of the appellate court in the following table are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the arguments in subparagraphs A and 2.

ABD GE on the other hand, according to the above evidence, the court ordered the plaintiff E and the plaintiff F to jointly pay 18,407,766 won and damages for delay. Accordingly, the plaintiff E paid a total of 22,736,979 won to the defendant. The appellate court accepted the offset defense based on the plaintiff F's claim for reimbursement of expenses due to the management of the work against the defendant and dismissed all of its claims. In addition, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff F's 31,95,411 won out of the above credit exists after the offset.

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,165,424, KRW 1,704, KRW 745, KRW 97,962 to the Plaintiff, KRW 1,892,68, KRW 22,736,979, KRW 31, KRW 31, KRW 31, KRW 4,440,021 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 4,440,021 from December 6, 2018, which is the day following the date of delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint, to the Plaintiff for delay payment as to the Plaintiff and KRW 1,892, KRW 688, Plaintiff E, KRW 222,97, KRW 99, KRW 311, KRW 31, and each of the said money.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s counterclaim

A. The defendant's defense that each of the above plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiffs is offset against each of the above claims against the plaintiffs. Thus, in full view of the evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10, the whole purport of the arguments is ①.