1. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

2. (Preliminary Claim) The Defendant shall grant the Plaintiff A and C 73,790.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From September 25, 2008 to March 21, 2011, the Defendant (the representative director H) agreed to pay KRW 50,000,00 to the Plaintiff immediately upon the Defendant’s receipt of construction cost, under the condition that the Defendant is responsible for the possession and management of the said construction site (hereinafter “the instant construction site”) on November 25, 201, for securing the claim for construction cost that the Defendant had not been paid from the non-party C Mutual Savings Bank in connection with the IMO New Construction Project, the Defendant would exercise the right of retention for securing the claim for construction cost that was not paid by the non-party C.

(hereinafter, the first agreement in this case). (b)

On November 27, 2010, the Defendant purchased tents and paid it to the Plaintiff, and around that time, Plaintiff C, D, F, B, and Plaintiff C were integrated with Plaintiff E at the construction site and began to occupy and manage the said construction site from that time.

C. Around January 201, Plaintiff C requested Nonparty J, a de facto operator of Defendant Company, to pay KRW 100,000,000 in return for the instant construction site possession management in preparation for the event that the said construction site management duties become long, and the Defendant’s representative director H, who obtained the above J’s consent from the said J, agreed to pay KRW 10,00,000 in return for the instant construction site possession management (hereinafter the instant amendment agreement) to the Plaintiff A and C as soon as the Defendant received construction expenses from Nonparty Sam Savings Bank (hereinafter the instant amendment agreement).

On the other hand, on April 7, 2010, prior to the initial agreement of this case, the Defendant: (a) prepared and submitted a “written waiver of the right of retention” with the purport that “the Defendant would waive the said construction site and refuse to exercise the right of retention in the future”; (b) occupied the said construction site; (c) Samnam District Court 2010Gahap14187 against the Defendant, Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap14187, which won a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the right of retention (including a request for extradition on the said construction site); and (d) according to the judgment of the said case, the Defendant’s senior support enforcement officer of the District Court of Suyang