1. The Defendants shall:

A. Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, Co., Ltd.'s floor, G, H, I, and J are each Defendant in attached Form No. 3.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) The Plaintiffs and the Defendants were co-owners and owners of approximately 1,230 square meters in U.S., Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”), and were members of the collective housing construction promotion committee that promoted the new construction of V main complex buildings on the above ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) The original members of the said apartment business died of 28 members who were members, but succeeded to the deceased by Plaintiff K, L, and M, and the deceased due to the death of the deceased X, the Plaintiff S and T succeeded to the deceased.

(1) The Plaintiff’s members including the Plaintiff’s 18 members and the Defendants’ 10 members were 28 members; hereinafter referred to as “members”).

(1) Members awarded a contract for the construction of the instant building to the Seowon Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Seowon Comprehensive Construction”).

(2) On February 21, 2005, the Calenda Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Calenda Construction”) entered into a contract with the Seocho General Construction Co., Ltd. to accept a subcontract for the construction cost of KRW 3,300,000 (excluding value-added tax) among the instant new construction of the instant building, and the members agreed to pay the Calenda Construction directly to the Calenda Construction.

(3) Under the above subcontract, the construction of the Calopian Construction was carried out up to the floor level of the 2nd underground, the 1st underground and the 1st underground floors among the structural frame of the instant building. Since then, the construction of the Calopian General Construction and the members of the Association were unable to carry out the Calopian Construction, and the construction cost for the Calopian Construction was KRW 794,607,000.

(4) In the case of the Pacific Construction, the Busan District Court's 2005Gahap2805 claim against its members for the construction cost.