1. Defendant D and E shall jointly serve as the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 150 million and the interest rate of KRW 152 million from January 26, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 7, 2017, Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), the representative director of which was Defendant E, (hereinafter “Defendant E”), set the construction cost of KRW 770 million (including additional tax), January 23, 2017, and March 23, 2017, to Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) for the two new construction works for the two new construction works for each of the G G-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

B. On March 21, 2017, Defendant B subcontracted the said construction work to the Plaintiff by setting the construction cost of KRW 220 million (including surtax) and the construction period from February 5, 2017 to April 23, 2017.

C. On July 25, 2017, Defendant B drafted a memorandum of waiver of construction (Evidence A 5) to the effect that the said construction is waived on the ground that “the actual subcontractor’s office (F) will provide for the waiver of the said construction,” and on the same day, F drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of payment of construction materials and labor cost (Evidence A6) to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay 152 million won for the non-paid materials confirmed with Defendant B’s consent to the Plaintiff by July 10, 2017.

【Ground of Recognition】 The plaintiff and the defendant B, and C: The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff, defendant D and E: Confession

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B and C is 1) The Plaintiff is aware of the circumstances that the Plaintiff is unable to receive the construction payment from F despite the foregoing payment angle, such as the fact that F merely acquired the payment of construction materials and labor cost together with the payment note (No. 6). As such, Defendant B still has the obligation to pay the subcontract construction cost to the Plaintiff. Defendant C, the actual operator of Defendant B, is the company that Defendant C does not have any effect. Defendant C, the actual operator of the instant construction site, is the company that is not the F, and that the amount of the preservation claim already established, 48,930 square meters of land in the Hanam-nam Special Metropolitan City, HA, Inc., an agricultural company, which is the construction site of this case, exceeds the value of the said land.