1. Defendant B’s KRW 16,060,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from December 24, 2013 to February 17, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. around July 2013, Defendant C awarded a contract to Defendant B for construction of a building with a veterinary hospital (hereinafter “instant construction”). From around that time to July 23, 2014, Defendant C paid a total of KRW 450,000,000 for construction cost.

B. Around November 12, 2013, Defendant B requested the Plaintiff to perform the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff was transferred KRW 20,000,000 from the account under the name of Defendant C’s husband E to a material price on November 20, 2013 following the commencement of the said construction work.

C. The Plaintiff, while carrying out the instant construction, completed the reinforced concrete construction of the first floor, and requested Defendant B to make an interim settlement of input expenses, such as personnel expenses, during the performance of the 2nd floor steel structure construction, but was rejected, the construction was suspended and completed on December 24, 2013. The remainder of the construction was directly carried out by the Defendants and completed on July 9, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute or Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 12, 14, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 16-5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff spent KRW 32,459,00 as construction cost, including labor cost, while performing the instant construction work.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above construction cost and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. Defendant C’s assertion is the owner of the instant construction project, and only contracted the said construction to Defendant C, and there is no contractual relationship with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant C has no obligation to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

C. Defendant B’s assertion is a direct construction work by Defendant C, the owner of the instant construction work, and thus, the obligor for payment of the construction cost is not Defendant C but Defendant B.

In addition, the plaintiff performed only part of the construction of this case and unilaterally suspended it, but it is excessive without any ground.