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

A. On September 2008, the Plaintiffs and D agreed to conduct business activities to enable the Defendant to receive the bridge construction parts of the 88 Expressway Expansion Works and the Southern Sea-Refrigerative Highway Expansion Works (hereinafter “instant construction”) ordered by the Plaintiffs and D Korea Highway Corporation (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs and D expenses and business compensation necessary for the activities of receiving orders from the instant construction.

(2) Upon entering into the instant agreement, the following are written with respect to the method of compensation and business. - Joint business shall be deemed as one person by combining Defendant, Plaintiffs, and D; - Executor shall compensate for 60% of profits and 40% of profits and losses. - The distribution of profits shall be calculated on the basis of construction. (b) around December 2008, the Defendant, through the prime business activities of Plaintiffs and D, ordered a bridge construction for five sections among the instant sections of construction, and commenced construction from July 2010. 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. In the instant case where the Plaintiffs seeking the payment of business compensation against the Defendant regarding the instant order order business activities, the Defendant asserted that, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs and D were one business entity, and concluded the instant agreement with the Defendant to receive business compensation from the Defendant, the Plaintiffs and D as they are the partnership property, their profits from their business activities as partnership property are the partnership property, so in order to seek the performance of partnership claims, three persons must become indispensable co-litigants. However, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed only by the Plaintiffs except D, and thus, it is unlawful.

The plaintiffs' claims of this case are 250,000,000, respectively, as business compensation for the order business activities of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendant.