1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

With respect to this case, this court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the third part of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the plaintiff" shall be "the defendant C".

In Chapter 4, the appeal against the above judgment was dismissed on March 30, 2017 and the appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1089 Decided March 30, 201). The above judgment became final and conclusive (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1089 Decided March 30, 2017).

In Chapter 4, " was sentenced," and the appeal against the above judgment was dismissed on August 18, 2017 (Supreme Court Decision 2017No588), and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do14396) is still pending."

In the last 4th reduction [based on recognition], “A evidence Nos. 12, 13, and A No. 5-5 to 8, Eul’s evidence No. 10-9, 10, and Eul’s evidence No. 11-6” is added to “A” in the last 5th reduction. From the second 5th to the last 5th “Defendant”, “The Defendant unilaterally rescinded the said subcontract by driving away the Plaintiff at the construction site of this case, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s performance of subcontracted works was impossible.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost or the damages for nonperformance due to the cancellation of Article 673 of the Civil Act.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - " as a party" to - - - - - - four.

In addition, Defendant C was delegated by Defendant B and entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff.