1. Defendant A’s KRW 158,660,871 as well as 6% per annum from April 1, 2015 to February 16, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to Defendant B’s lack of jurisdiction

A. Since the Plaintiff agreed to conclude a contract with Defendant B to have jurisdiction over the lawsuit as the competent court in the location of Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s assertion was erroneous in the misapprehension of jurisdiction in the instant lawsuit which was not brought to the Cheongju District Court, the seat of Defendant B.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff agreed to conclude a contract for work with the C management body in which defendant B is the administrator, and that "if a dispute arises, the relevant court shall be the Da management body's seat", and the above provisions of the jurisdiction agreement constitute an exclusive jurisdiction agreement as they agreed to the court in which the above defendant is located as the competent court, which is one of the several legal courts.

However, as seen below, as long as the jurisdiction of this court is recognized with respect to Defendant A, the provisions of Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Act on the related trial are applied to Defendant B, and the jurisdiction of this court is recognized with respect to Defendant B. In the case of a lawsuit seeking the performance of the obligation such as the contract deposit obligation in this case, the jurisdiction of this court corresponding to the court at the domicile of the creditor who is the place of the obligation, is recognized, and thus

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the primary claim(the claim against Defendant A) and the written evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including the branch number) of the judgment as to the primary claim(the claim against Defendant A), the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money set forth in the Disposition No. 1.

3. If the plaintiff's conjunctive claim (the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B) is found to be the primary claim, the conjunctive claim is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's primary claim is justified, and the conjunctive claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.