1. Defendant F: (a) KRW 13,214,00 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 9,225,00 for Plaintiff B; (c) KRW 16,492,00 for Plaintiff C; and (d) KRW 2,867 for Plaintiff D.

1. Summary of the plaintiffs' selective claims against the defendants

A. (1) The Defendants are those operating a private business entity registered under Defendant E’s name with the name of “G”. The Plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable for payment of each of the funds stated in the Plaintiffs’ claim and damages for delay, since the Defendants leased construction machinery to the Defendants or operate a restaurant at the construction site that they received a contract from Bad Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Bad Co., Ltd.”), and the Defendants possess the same claims as indicated in the following Plaintiffs’ claim details.

(2) The Defendants asserted additional assertion against Defendant E entered into a contract to transfer part of KRW 55,700,000 to the Plaintiffs for each claim amount of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant assignment contract”).

According to the instant claim assignment contract, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the lending company for the claim for the transfer money, but the judgment against the losing company became final and conclusive as it is.

However, at the time of the instant transfer of claims, the Plaintiffs prepared a written confirmation of consultation in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant confirmation”) in Defendant E, and the instant confirmation is that “The Plaintiffs were aware that Defendant E lent the name of G business operator to Defendant F, and thus, they would not be held liable for each of the above claims against Defendant E, who is the G nominal owner, because each of the claims of the Plaintiffs listed in the instant paragraph (a) occurred while the Plaintiffs was aware that he lent the name of G business operator to Defendant F.”

However, in fact, Defendant F introduced the Plaintiffs to the head of G company, and the Plaintiffs were aware that Defendant F would work in accordance with the direction of Defendant E., but the Plaintiffs believed H (Defendant E’s de facto spouse) that “When the Plaintiffs affix their seals on the instant confirmation document, they would conclude the instant assignment of claims.”