1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd.: 6,550,000 won and 6% per annum from April 2, 2019 to August 29, 2019.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 together with the purport of the entire pleadings.

Defendant E-I (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant church”) contracted Defendant C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant C”) with the construction of a new E-IS new E-IS to the company.

B. On October 13, 2017, between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company entered into a contract under which the portion of the instant subcontracted work for machinery and equipment (hereinafter “instant subcontracted work”) was KRW 427,350,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from October 13, 2017 to April 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

C. While performing the subcontracted project of this case, the Plaintiff performed the additional construction project beyond the scope of the instant subcontract due to design changes, etc.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion (1) The Plaintiff performed the above additional construction upon the request, consent, or consent of the Defendants. The Defendant Company confirmed the amount of the additional construction in KRW 75,00,000, and the Defendant church did not pay only part of that amount to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 37,254,551, including part of the price of the instant subcontracted construction.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 37,745,449 to the Plaintiff.

(2) The plaintiff of the defendant company (A) performed additional construction upon the request of the defendant church, received the payment from the defendant church, and the defendant company did not participate in this.

At the request of the person in charge of the defendant church, the defendant company only reviewed the details and amount of additional construction requested by the plaintiff to the defendant church.

(B) It cannot be accepted as a unilateral payment for additional works, etc. claimed by the Plaintiff of the Defendant church.

On December 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 35,000,000 additional construction work.