2. Defendant.

According to the records, in the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiffs filed a claim for the payment of each construction cost against the defendants by asserting that they are jointly and severally liable for the payment of each construction cost, who re-subcontracted part of the construction cost to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit of this case, and they are jointly and severally liable for the payment of each construction cost to the plaintiffs. It is recognized that the plaintiff gardening gas industry added the purport of the claim for the payment of the construction cost and the grounds for the claim against the defendant T&D and only the defendant A at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case against the defendant T&D at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case, but sought the payment of the construction cost against the defendant T&D and only the defendant A on December 13, 2013.

The addition of the parties in a civil lawsuit is limited to the essential co-litigants under Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act or the preliminary co-litigants under Article 70 of the same Act. The addition of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as above in the Plaintiff’s gardening gas industry is to add the new parties in addition to the previous parties. However, the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendants constitutes an essential co-litigation that the purpose of the lawsuit is to be determined jointly with all co-litigants, for the reason that the Defendants contracted each construction work to the Plaintiffs or agreed to pay the construction price.

Since the claims by some of the co-litigants or the claims by some of the co-litigants against other co-litigants or the claims against other co-litigants cannot be deemed to constitute a preliminary or selective co-litigation that is legally incompatible, the defendant of the plaintiff fixed gas industry.