1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates the interior construction business with the trade name of D.

B. Defendant C concluded a contract on April 7, 2015 with the Plaintiff to operate the health termination place business of the second floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E building No. 207.

C. Defendant C, as well as the first interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation (the second and second floor installation), will entrust the Plaintiff with a total of KRW 25,300,000 including the installation of external signboards and fire fighting installation, and finally, concluded a contract with the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff by setting the construction cost of KRW 13,50,000 for the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation.

Defendant C paid the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff on the same day, and paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff after three days after the commencement of the construction work.

After completing the interior work on April 16, 2015, the Plaintiff requested Defendant C to pay the remaining 7,50,000 won of the construction (13,500,000 won - 3,000,000 won - 3,000,000 won) on the 17th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, 5, 6, 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, Defendant C is obligated to pay 7,500,000 won for the remainder of the construction project and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from July 18, 2015 to September 26, 2016, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant C’s assertion and its determination (i.e., any defect that the interior works implemented by the Plaintiff was inconsistent with the relevant laws and regulations, and not completed, Defendant C had to separately implement the fire-fighting works and the installation works of a hot water tank, taking the additional cost of approximately KRW 10 million into account.

Therefore, the construction balance claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be paid.

Domen Judgment Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 20 each.