The Defendants jointly share KRW 153,570,000 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. from March 29, 2020.

1. As to Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”),

A. 1) On April 20, 2019, the Plaintiff was jointly accused Co-Defendant F Co-Defendant Corporation F (hereinafter “F”) with Defendant D on the ground of the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul.

2) Of the new factory construction works, the Corporation, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction, etc.”) shall be the Corporation.

(2) A subcontract (hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”) shall be set at KRW 240,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the construction cost.

(2) Since June 2019, the Plaintiff completed all of the instant construction works, etc., and filed a claim for the payment of the construction cost with Defendant D and the co-defendant F, the owner of the construction.

3) On October 25, 2019, Co-Defendant F indicated in the separate sheet of KRW 153,570,000 in total face value for the payment of the construction cost to the Plaintiff on October 25, 2019 (hereinafter “each electronic bill of this case”).

(4) On January 10, 2020, the Plaintiff et al. presented a payment proposal for each of the instant electronic bills, but all of them refused to pay.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay as a subcontractor the unpaid subcontract price of KRW 153,570,000 and delay damages for the subcontract price of this case to the plaintiff who is the subcontractor pursuant to the subcontract of this case.

C. Defendant D’s assertion asserts that there is no possibility of concluding the instant subcontract agreement with the Plaintiff.

However, the existence of a legal act must be recognized in the case of a disposal document deemed genuine, unless there is a clear and acceptable reason to deny its content.

(Supreme Court Decision 80Da442 delivered on June 9, 1981). Inasmuch as Gap evidence No. 1 (Contract for Construction Work) was duly prepared, the fact that the subcontract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and defendant D as stated in the contract is sufficiently recognized and the defendant D bears the burden of proof No. 1.