1. The lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff supplied turd for a C national industrial complex landscaping project (hereinafter “instant landscaping project”) ordered by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH Corporation; hereinafter the same shall apply) from April 2014 to June 9, 2014. The supply price was KRW 114,330,000 in total.

B. From May 23, 2014, D is a registration director of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), and on July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted and submitted to the Plaintiff a letter of commitment with the following content:

(hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement"). The name of B (State) and A (State): The location of the D1 place of business: Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-si will make maximum efforts to settle the payment of the completion amount at the time of receiving the completion amount (F Company and A) with the amount of KRW 114,30,000,000,000,000, which is the price for the supply of the DNA goods of Hadddy in terms of Hady's history, in order to make the payment of the completion amount to the maximum extent possible.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition】: Gap evidence 1 through 3; Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 3; Eul evidence 3; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants seeking payment of the outstanding amount of KRW 30,30,000 out of the turfed supply price, Defendant A asserts that Defendant A’s lawsuit against Defendant A is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive the turf due to the lack of the Defendant’s eligibility.

Meanwhile, Defendant B asserts that Defendant B’s lawsuit against Defendant B is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff agreed not to claim the amount of DNA supplied goods more than that of Defendant B.

In a performance suit, the standing to be the defendant is the plaintiff's own claim and the judgment can be absorbed into the judgment of the propriety of the claim, so the person alleged as the performance obligor is the legitimate defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451 delivered on November 28, 1995). Accordingly, the defendant A is against the defendant.