1. Defendant (Appointed Party) E, Appointed F, and Defendant D shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 138,400,000 on the Plaintiff, and as a result, May 1, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. In 2017, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction of H freezing, freezing storage, light air sphere frame (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the contract price of KRW 140 million (excluding value-added tax), and was paid the down payment of KRW 20 million on April 12, 2017.

(hereinafter “The primary construction contract” and “the instant construction contract” including the following additional construction contract). On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for additional construction works from F on a contract amount of KRW 4 million (excluding value-added tax) by the Appointor.

(hereinafter referred to as "additional construction contract"). (b)

On April 27, 2017, the Defendant (Appointed Party) E (hereinafter “Defendant E”) who is the father of the F and the actual operator of G (hereinafter “Defendant E”) drafted a written confirmation of work completion on April 27, 2017, and on May 11, 2017, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s letter of contract payment undertaking as follows:

) The Defendant D had drawn up and paid a payment guarantee against the said payment undertaking. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B and C (hereinafter “stock company”)

A. In light of the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B contracted the construction work to Defendant C, that Defendant C subcontracted to Defendant C, that Defendant C lent only the name of Defendant C, that Defendant D is the Chairperson, and that Defendant A is an agent at the construction site of the said company as Defendant C managing director, the said Defendants are not formal contracting parties, but are also obligated to pay the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff.

B. However, it cannot be said that the Defendants, not the parties to the instant construction contract, are obligated to pay the construction cost solely on the ground that they are the principal contractor or subcontractor, and there is no evidence that G is a formal contracting party and Defendant C is the actual contracting party.

Therefore, above.