1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 35,500,000 and Defendant B from February 7, 2020, and Defendant C from February 20, 2020.

Basic Facts

On January 1, 2017, the Defendants contracted the construction of 9 units of the D-ground detached Housing (E building) to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), established a subcontract for the construction of interior works among the foregoing construction works to H H operated by G with the construction cost of KRW 299,000,000, and the construction period of KRW 15,207, from July 1, 2017 to August 15, 2017.

The Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with G for a wooden project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction project”) among the foregoing interior project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction project”) with the amount of KRW 20,000 per day and KRW 190,000 per day.

In August 2017, the Plaintiff suspended construction works as the Plaintiff did not receive the construction cost, and the Defendants and G agreed on August 31, 2017 as follows.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). Contents: The remainder of KRW 99,00,000 shall be paid by the project owner (the Defendant) due to the unpaid payment (F) for the interior works of the E building.

The Defendants, either directly or through I, paid KRW 42,750,000 in total, either KRW 7,00,000 on September 23, 2017, KRW 14,000 on February 23, 2018, KRW 1,750,000 on March 6, 2018, and KRW 20,00,000 on April 13, 2018.

[In view of the fact that: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 16, and 17 of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 17 of the Act (the Defendant asserts that the evidence No. 1 was forged; (b) the remainder, excluding the content that “after the adjustment of quantity is claimed F.”, “after the direct payment of the owner, the Plaintiff, and J,” is recognized as having been directly confirmed and sealed by the Defendant; and (c) the testimony of K, which prepared the said additional part, appears to have been aware of and consented to the addition of the above contents, it is difficult to find that the above evidence was forged.

The plaintiff's summary of the argument by the parties to the whole purport of the pleading has not received construction price equivalent to KRW 35,500,000 from G.

On the other hand, G has the right to claim the construction cost against the Defendants, the owner, in accordance with the instant agreement.