2. Summary of the plaintiffs' arguments as to the primary and primary claims

A. On May 1, 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract for L with L on May 1, 2013, and held the Plaintiffs liable for the unpaid construction cost until the time.

As a result, the defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost to the plaintiffs.

2) On August 201, 201, F contracted the instant new construction work to Plaintiff D with the cost of KRW 6.739 billion, and Plaintiff A, B, and C subcontracted part of the said construction work from Plaintiff D.

Therefore, Plaintiff D has a claim for construction cost against F, and Plaintiff A, B, and C acquired part of Plaintiff D’s claim for construction cost from Plaintiff D on February 5, 2015, and thus, it has a claim for construction cost against F.

In addition, Plaintiff A, B, and C have a right to a direct payment of subcontract consideration against F, the ordering person, in accordance with Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

F and the Defendant, a company substantially operated by K for the instant construction, which is substantially the same company interest K with the same corporate interest, and after K changed the name of the owner of the instant building, which was the only asset of F, to evade F’s debt, into N, etc., as a result of the final change into the Defendant, the Defendant currently owned the instant building, and the Defendant did not pay a reasonable price to F upon receipt of the transfer of the owner’s name as above.

Therefore, the Defendant’s denial of the obligation to the Plaintiffs on the ground that it is a legal entity separate from F constitutes an abuse of legal personality that is not permissible under the good faith principle, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the construction price to the Plaintiffs.

3) The Defendant is the owner of the instant building.