1. The part against Defendant A in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28,908,353 and its amount.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 5, 2010, Defendant A, the representative of C, entered into a construction contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) on the construction of a factory located D at Sejong-si (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 420,00,000 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. According to the contract statement submitted by Defendant A to Defendant B on April 5, 2010, the content of the instant contract is as follows: (a) electric construction; (b) electric utility; and (c) electric construction; and (d) electric construction; and (c) telecommunications construction; (d) electric installation; (e) electric construction is composed of KRW 41,328,569; and (e) electric construction amount is KRW 22,056,90.

C. Meanwhile, Article 1(1) of the instant Special Agreement provides that “The cost of water supply, electricity, urban gas installation, and human resource entry shall be borne separately.”

The Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with Defendant A (hereinafter “instant two contract”) for the electrical construction part of the instant one contract, and completed the construction work around June 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul-B's evidence 1, 6, 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. While the Plaintiff was engaged in electrical construction under the instant contract 2, the Plaintiff performed various additional construction works at the request of the Defendants (hereinafter “instant additional construction”). The price is KRW 28,908,353 as the appraiser E appraised, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the additional construction price and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. If there is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the payment of the instant additional construction cost, the Defendants obtained a benefit equivalent to the construction cost without any legal cause due to the instant additional construction work. Therefore, the Defendants are deemed to have been.