1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 59,415,830 against the Plaintiff and Defendant B with respect thereto from March 8, 2016; and Defendant C with respect to the Plaintiff on March 8, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants for the “E” pentine Corporation located in Jeju City D (hereinafter “instant construction”). From March 27, 2014 to July 10, 2014, the Defendants had subcontractors complete the said construction and receive construction cost of KRW 269,385,940 from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. From March 2014 to May 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants a sum of KRW 128,000,000 to the construction cost under the instant contract, but the Defendants failed to pay the said construction cost to the subcontractors properly, thereby resulting in the suspension of the instant construction work.

C. The Plaintiff requested the Defendants to pay the construction cost to the subcontractors and to request the instant construction work. However, the Defendants failed to perform this.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work by paying the construction cost to the subcontractor directly.

Of the construction cost received from the Plaintiff with respect to the instant construction project, the amount paid by the Defendants to the subcontractors for the instant construction project is KRW 68,584,170 in total.

E. The copy of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to rescind the instant contract on the grounds of the Defendants’ nonperformance was sent to Defendant B on March 8, 2016, and to Defendant C on April 20, 2016.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including a branch number if there is a serial number), the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Nonghyup Bank, the whole purport of the pleading, and the purport of the whole argument

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the contract of this case was rescinded due to the Defendants’ nonperformance of obligations, and the Defendants jointly and severally returned unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, and the construction cost of this case received from the Plaintiff.