1. Defendant B and Defendant D jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 55,00,000,000, and the aforementioned amount from September 23, 2013 to September 2015.

1. Claim against Defendant B and D

A. On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff is acting as an agent for services related to construction and civil engineering design, etc. under the trade name of the Erchitectural Design Office. However, on July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the design work of a building, such as a factory on the F in Scheon-si, Inc., and Defendant D jointly and severally guaranteed the above service payment obligation. (2) Although the Plaintiff completed the above service work on August 22, 2013, the Defendants did not pay the above Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the service payment of KRW 55,00,000,000, and delay damages therefor.

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is jointly and severally liable to pay the service cost and delay damages equivalent to the claim amount to the Plaintiff to the company substantially identical with the Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

B. According to the evidence No. 6-1 and No. 2 of the judgment, although the representative director G of the defendant C was the representative director of the defendant B, it is currently registered as the inside director, and the representative director of the defendant B was deemed to be the inside director of the defendant C, it is acknowledged that the above facts alone are insufficient to deem the defendant C and the defendant B as the same company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

C. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C based on the premise that the defendant C is the same company as the defendant B is dismissed as there is no reason to further examine it.