1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 32.8 million and the amount shall be 6% per annum from November 1, 2015 to November 9, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the manufacture and installation work of the elevator of the B main complex apartment, which was being constructed by a contract from Defendant B, the ordering person, for the construction of the B main complex apartment (hereinafter “Defendant B’s construction”). The Plaintiff completed the agreed construction work until October 30, 2015.

B. On April 26, 2016, Defendant A drafted a direct payment agreement with Defendant B, the ordering person, to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 32.8 million to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 32.8 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from November 1, 2015 to November 9, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, 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. As to this, Defendant B’s construction of the non-permanent integrated construction is asserting to the effect that Defendant A did not have an obligation to pay the remainder of the construction payment to the Plaintiff, but the fact that Defendant A drafted a direct payment agreement, barring any special circumstance, it is insufficient to deem that Defendant A exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation to the Plaintiff of the non-permanent comprehensive construction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and thus, Defendant B’s assertion of the non-permanent comprehensive construction cannot be accepted.

(On the other hand, there is no proof that the integrated construction of the defendant non-contractor constitutes an enterprise subject to the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act).3.