1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 25,000,000, and as to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. on April 15, 2015

1. The following facts are found to be either a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant B”), or acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) are deemed to have been led to confession pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. On September 2014, the Plaintiff, engaged in an engineering work, was awarded a subcontract for a reinforced wall construction work, such as Kim Jong-si D, etc. by Defendant B.

B. Around October 2014, the Plaintiff received payment of KRW 23,930,500, which was part of the construction price from Defendant B.

C. On February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice by calculating the unpaid construction cost as KRW 25,39,000, but did not receive it.

The plaintiff, the defendant B, and the defendant C shall pay the construction cost of KRW 25,00,00,000 on April 14, 2015 to the F Company A, but they shall confirm the acquisition by transfer that the C Company G shall pay the total amount of the construction cost of KRW 25,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000

“The confirmation of the acquisition of the obligation(A. 2. hereinafter referred to as “the confirmation of the acquisition of the obligation”) was prepared.

2. According to these facts, according to the determination as to the claim against Defendant C, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 25,000,000 and delay damages therefor.

On the other hand, this part of the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is liable for delay from February 29, 2015, the day following the date when the tax invoice was issued to the defendant Eul, but as seen earlier, the defendant C acquired the debt on April 14, 2015, and therefore the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

However, since the debt acquisition certificate of this case does not specify the due date, the defendant C received the claim for performance.