A. On May 4, 201, the Construction of New Stocks Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with respect to the construction period of the H childcare center construction work on the land outside Seosan-si and one parcel of land outside Seosan-si (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant from May 4, 201 to May 4, 2011.

8. By the end of 30. A contract was made for 472,00,000 won (no value-added tax) for the construction, and was approved for the use of the building at issue on December 28, 2011.

B. The construction cost that Nonparty Company received from the Defendant by January 20, 2012 is the total amount of KRW 354,039,955.

C. The Plaintiffs, as those who contracted and executed part of the instant construction work, respectively, from the non-party company, acquired each of the claims stated in the claim of the construction payment claim of this case from the non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, 4 through 14, Eul evidence 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the amounts stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiffs among the remaining construction cost of KRW 117,960,045 ( KRW 472,00,000 - KRW 354,039,955).

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant agreed to reduce the construction cost of KRW 22,00,000 as a result of the decline in the construction area between the Nonparty Company and the Nonparty Company.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 15 and Eul evidence Nos. 5-3, following the conclusion of the instant construction contract, the defendant changed his design by moving the location of the building on June 2, 201 after the conclusion of the instant construction contract, and obtained the permission on the 10th of the same month, and the defendant's payment of KRW 22,00,000 to the defendant as to the instant construction work by July 30, 201.

The fact that the delivery and delivery of a letter of payment is recognized.

However, the above evidence alone argues that the defendant agreed to reduce the construction cost.