A. On November 9, 2015, the Defendants ordered the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) to undertake a new construction of “G building” on the ground of the “G building” on the ground of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Sungnam-gu, and the Intervenor awarded a subcontract to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2015 by setting the construction period of reinforced concrete construction works among the said new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) as KRW 1,062,16,904 on November 9, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

The Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the Intervenor agreed to pay the instant construction cost directly to the Plaintiff.

B. The instant construction project discontinued around June 30, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s overdue wage, etc., and the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant construction contract on July 5, 2016 on the grounds of the discontinuance of construction due to overdue wage, delay in air, etc.

C. The Plaintiff received KRW 511,597,273 as the construction price of the instant case from the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants demanded multiple design modifications, and accordingly, the Plaintiff spent KRW 925,203,781 as the instant construction cost until June 30, 2016 (i.e., the construction cost of KRW 608,41,437 as the instant construction cost (i.e., additional construction cost of KRW 316,792,344).

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 413,606,508 (=925,203,781) - the construction cost of KRW 511,597,273) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendants did not request the Plaintiff to change the design.

In addition, the construction cost of this case asserted by the plaintiff cannot be trusted, and since the defendants paid all the construction cost to the plaintiff according to the nature and nature of the contract, the plaintiff's assertion is unfair.

3. Determination

A. According to the Gap evidence No. 7, it is recognized that the plaintiff performed the construction work by changing the design several times at the time of the intervenor's request during the construction process of the instant case.

However, only the above facts alone are 925,203,781 won as the construction cost of this case.