1. Defendant D’s KRW 5,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 27, 2016 to June 3, 2016, as follows.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, 2, 3, and 4.

The plaintiff shall be the head of the F Kindergartens E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant kindergarten”).

B. On May 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of the instant kindergarten extension project (hereinafter “instant construction project”) with G (H) during the construction period from May 25, 2013 to June 30, 2013; and the construction cost was KRW 230 million to be paid to G (hereinafter “instant construction contract”); and I, the husband of G, guaranteed the instant construction contract by G, the husband of which guaranteed the instant construction contract.

C. Defendant B performed the roof board construction among the instant construction works, and Defendant C served as the head of the construction site of the instant construction site, and Defendant D performed the Abridge construction among the instant construction works.

The instant construction period was extended until August 30, 2013, but G could not complete the instant construction project within the construction contract period extended by G as a result of executing construction differently from design.

E. G waived the instant construction work on August 16, 2013, and, at the time when I waived, he/she was responsible for the construction cost up to the time when I waived.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid the flag of the instant construction contract to G. The Defendants paid the instant kindergarten fees or wages that the Defendants had not been paid to G, thereby inducing the Plaintiff or avoiding disturbance, thereby interfering with the Plaintiff’s kindergarten work and impairing the Plaintiff’s honor. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that they have a duty to pay for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff in money.

B. (1) Determination on Defendant B’s assertion is not sufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the basis of each of the evidence Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14, and there is a different difference.