1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant entered into a contract on March 28, 201 with STX-ray Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “STX Construction”) and 72.7 billion won for construction amount as of March 28, 201, as a contractor of the 20-2 ground STX-ray 20-2 above-dong, Changyang-gu, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiffs were subcontractors who were awarded a subcontract for part of the instant construction works from STX Construction, and each STX Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff New Technology Co., Ltd”) concluded a subcontract on December 5, 201 with respect to the temporary electrical construction (construction amount: KRW 75.9 million) and the electricity, fire fighting, and premises installation (construction amount: KRW 2,180,861,91) on June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Undisclosed Communications”) concluded a subcontract for each part of the instant construction works around August 9, 2012 (construction amount: KRW 735,305,135).

C. Since then, STX Construction applied for rehabilitation as Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gohap85, and received a ruling of commencement of rehabilitation from the above court on May 8, 2013. Around that time, the instant construction was suspended. The Defendant paid to STX Construction in excess of KRW 18,945,954,957, compared to the construction cost rate of the instant case (39.8%).

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s New York and the undisclosed communications sent each of the certificates of content as of June 3, 2013, to the effect that “The Defendant requires the direct payment of the subcontract price pursuant to Article 35(2)(5) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.”

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (if there are serial numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and 10 through 14, and the court's fact-finding results and the whole purport of the pleadings

2. Determination as to the existence of the right of retention 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiffs against the Defendant are the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”).

(b).