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

A. On September 3, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and Asan City, and with respect to the construction of a new site childcare center (hereinafter “instant construction”), KRW 2 billion for the construction cost (excluding value-added tax), and the construction period from September 3, 2013 to January 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The plaintiffs are subcontractors who have been awarded part of the contract of this case from F.

B. According to the instant contract, the construction cost shall be paid according to the nature of the contract, and KRW 300 million out of the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 500 million shall be paid within two months after completion, and the remainder of KRW 200 million shall be paid within five months after completion.

C. F performed the instant construction in accordance with the instant contract, and F did not complete the instant construction by January 31, 2014, which is the date of completion of the contract.

On March 24, 2014, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation on payment of the balance of the construction price, stating that “The balance of the instant construction work is 632.5 million won, and the amount of KRW 200 million, up to April 15, 2014, up to May 30, 2014, and up to 192.5 million, shall be paid up to July 30, 2014,” to H, a F managing director, the Defendant: (a) written confirmation on payment of the balance of the construction price.

E. F had not completed the instant construction before the end of April 2014, and had suspended the construction at the construction site of this case.

On July 25, 2014, the Defendant expressed its intent to rescind the instant contract, which was served on F on July 28, 2014.

F. Meanwhile, the document (hereinafter “instant payment note”) written between the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, and F, other than Plaintiff D, and the Defendant and F.

Although the date on which the letter of payment in this case was written is not specified in the document, each of the plaintiffs, the defendants, and F affixed a seal on the name of each party.

(However, the defendant asserts that the authenticity of the letter of payment in this case was denied, and that the said letter of payment was forged.