1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant C and Defendant B had a business name under the name of Defendant B, and the actual duties were carried out together by Defendant C, while Defendant C in charge of the carpet and E.

B. Defendant C: (a) around May 2012, intended to engage in franchise business; (b) the Plaintiff was entrusted with the Human Rights Corporation; and (c) the Plaintiff was from June 2012 to June 2012.

8. The construction contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as construction cost of KRW 179,104,00 (=75,291,000), KRW 26,475,00, and KRW 77,38,000 as the construction cost of Canada, and KRW 77,38,00 as the construction cost of Pakistan, and Defendant C accepted the offer. The construction contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as the construction cost of KRW 179,104,00 (= KRW 75,291,000, KRW 26,475,000, KRW 77,338,00).

However, the Plaintiff did not prepare a separate contract for construction work and carried out the construction work.

The Defendants sent part of the construction cost to the Plaintiff as the money was raised.

C. However, even though the Plaintiff completed the above 3 carpet construction, the Defendants did not pay the remainder of KRW 93,984,000 (=179,104,000 - 85,120,000).

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 93,984,00 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. Defendant C entered into a contract for each of the following contracts (hereinafter “each of the instant construction contracts”) with the Plaintiff and F, C, C, and C, C, and P, P, E, respectively: (a) the Plaintiff engaged in three of the above construction works; and (b) the fact that Defendant C paid KRW 85120,000 to the Plaintiff as construction price does not conflict between the parties.

In addition, in addition to the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 33, 34, 35, 38, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff and defendant C had held hostings for each of the construction contracts of this case, and the plaintiff prepared a quotation of the above 3 carpets.