1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 21,730,210, and 5% per annum from August 11, 2013 to November 20, 2015.

1. Claim against the defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Grounds: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. On the request of Defendant C, the Plaintiff, who is a wood craftsmen 1 of basic facts, was from July 11, 2013 to the same year.

8. By October, 100, the Rotterdam Corporation (representative E) mobilized three persons of the part of the Rotterdam Corporation (hereinafter “the instant construction”) among the Rotterdam Corporation (hereinafter “the instant construction”) that was ordered by the non-party corporation Samsan Ginseng.

(2) The total construction cost of the instant construction work (e.g., wages and all expenses for wooden craftsmen) is KRW 21,730,210 (hereinafter “the construction cost of this case”).

On the other hand, among the construction cost of this case, the Plaintiff paid the three-party workers' wages (each of 4,320,000 won) directly at his own expense, and all of the expenses seems to have been paid preferentially at the Plaintiff's expense.

【The fact that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap 1, 2-1, 2-2, Eul 1, witness F's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1: Defendant B is the owner of the instant construction work, and the party who entrusted the construction work to the Plaintiff is Defendant C. Furthermore, Defendant C is liable to the Plaintiff for the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff trusted the horse and carried out the instant construction work. Therefore, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff. Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s entrustment to the Plaintiff by the interior company called “D”, which is an individual company, and Defendant C is merely an employee of the said company. As such,

C. The above facts and the records of the above evidence are acknowledged as comprehensive consideration of the whole purport of the arguments in the inquiry reply to the Ministry of Justice of this Court as follows.