1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 95,50,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from September 2, 2017; and Defendant C with respect to the said amount.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 8, 2016, the Defendants entered into a contract for private construction works (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) under which the construction period is from March 15, 2016 to December 15, 2016, with respect to the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government E, F, and G H H H Construction (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. On October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a standard subcontract agreement for construction works (hereinafter “instant subcontract agreement”) with D, setting the construction period from October 20, 2016 to November 25, 2016 as the contract price of KRW 170,500,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to the instant construction works, among the instant construction works, from October 20 to November 25, 2016.

C. Although the Plaintiff completed the construction, it was paid KRW 75,00,000 out of the construction cost on November 18, 2016 by D, and the remainder of KRW 95,500,000 is not paid.

On the other hand, D’s representative director is Defendant B, and D did not issue a payment guarantee certificate for subcontract price to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff claimed payment of the subcontract price directly to the Defendants on several occasions due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the payment of the subcontract price from D, and did not receive the payment guarantee letter from D. Therefore, the Defendants, the ordering person, are subject to Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”).

Article 35(2) and D are obligated to pay 95,50,000 won directly for the subcontract price payable under the instant subcontract agreement.

Even if the Plaintiff did not have the right to directly claim construction costs against the Defendants.

D, as the contractor of the instant contract, holds the claim for the construction cost payable by the Defendants, who are the ordering parties.