The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

According to A’s claim service contract, Plaintiff A entered into a service contract with the Defendants and provided services to put a skiinger into a road packing construction site from April 2016, and the unpaid amount is KRW 22,00,000,00, and the Defendants are obligated to pay it.

However, there is no written contract on this part between Plaintiff A and the Defendants; Plaintiff A issued a tax invoice with respect to the above service to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”); Plaintiff A filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the unpaid service payment against Plaintiff A (Seoul District Court Decision 2017DaDa10329); and Plaintiff A expressed his/her intent to accept the above claim in the above lawsuit (Evidence 1) and Plaintiff A reported the rehabilitation claim in the rehabilitation case against Plaintiff A (Evidence 2). In light of all the circumstances, it is difficult to acknowledge that Plaintiff A directly concluded the service contract with the Defendants, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff A, based on the payment agreement, asserts that the Defendants agreed to pay the service payment that was not received by the plaintiff A.

In light of the fact that Defendant D, in the currency with the Plaintiff’s employee F, referred to as “not later than 2,000 Emb.” (Evidence A) but it can be interpreted as an endeavoring to receive the unpaid amount as an ambiguous expression, and in general, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant D expressed its intent to directly pay the service amount that the Plaintiff had not received.

Plaintiff

B The Plaintiff B’s claim entered into a service contract with the Defendants and entered into the construction site from April 2016 to October 30, 2016.