1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, Defendant D, and Defendant E are jointly and severally and severally liable for KRW 101,144,000 and the aforementioned amount.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) was awarded a contract for the construction of apartment buildings and officetels located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun with Defendant D, and the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract with the said Defendant Company for metal, windows, and glass construction (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The Plaintiff sought payment of the remainder of the construction work for KRW 46,14,00, which was not paid out of the construction cost as the completion of the instant construction work, from Defendant Company and Defendant C, the representative of Defendant Company, and Defendant A, the client of Defendant D and Defendant D’s children, are liable as the guarantor.

In addition, the Defendant Company borrowed KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff and sought payment of KRW 55 million which the remainder of the Defendants guaranteed the return of the borrowed amount.

2. Determination

A. According to the part of the claim for construction cost (1) as to the claim against the defendant company, there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the claim against the defendant company, or the plaintiff and the defendant company agreed to pay the construction cost of KRW 250 million with respect to the construction of this case, and the plaintiff completed the construction of this case, and the plaintiff was not paid the construction cost of KRW 46,14,00 from the above construction cost by the defendant company.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 46,144,00 and delay damages.

The Defendant Company asserted to the effect that, at the time of the instant subcontract agreement, the Plaintiff was directly paid the progress payment for the instant construction project from Defendant D, the owner of the instant construction project, and that the Defendant Company was not obligated to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff, but it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant D, the owner of the instant construction project, was exempted

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(2) The judgment on the claim against Defendant C is examined, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is alone.